Public Funding of the Arts
Manmade954
loves or benefits from.... Do you watch television? How about film? Both of
these, while not a live theatre art form, are derivitives of theatre. IMHO, the
general populous of the United States uses some sort of theatre as a release
from the daily stress. If that weren't true, cable television wouldn't have
over 100 channels in most cities running 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and
personal satellite dishes wouldn't be selling like hotcakes.
And what about the fact that most major Law schools seem to prefer someone with
a theatre background or community theatre involvement for admission? Does this
mean that these people,along with the people whom they represent, are not
benefiting from theatre?
Also, you seem to have forgotten that the "Arts" includes more than just
theatre. There is also music - both vocal and instrumental; dance; visual art;
and professional photography ( which seems to cause the most controversy in
national funding). Wouldn't you say that most people in the US listen to some
sort of music for pleasure at some time in their life? Where are the composers
and performers for this music to come from without funding for training? And
while I know that Arts in education is not always seen as a worthy expense,
making it the first thing that schools eliminate when cutting budgets, students
who are exposed to the Arts tend to score higher on standardized tests (not my
opinion , but one of public record) which seems to be the main thrust of
education today - to have the best Standardized test results to prove that our
children are getting a good education. For many schools, the exposure that
their children receive to the Arts is mainly through government subsidized
programs like artists in residence, school to work trips to performances, guest
lecturers, etc.
Yes, I agree that perhaps the current NEA may not be the perfect situation, but
to say that government support of the arts is not needed seems to be rash. I
would hate to live in a country where culture, music, theatre, dance, and art
was supressed. How would imagination grow in such an environment -- and
without imagination and creativity, would there be invention?
" LenniE" Lenn...@notherehotmail.com
wrote:
>Much as I love theatre, it is not a matter of life and death. Nor is it
>necessarily something that everyone loves or benefits from. For these
>reasons, I would have to disagree that the government should fund arts.
LenniE
theatre etc, but I still maintain that there are more important issues that
should be addressed first, such as basic education, health etc. These are
basic human rights to which everyone should be entitled, and benefit from.
I would agree with government funding in certain specific circumstances,
such as music therapy. But general arts funding is not something I agree
with - public money should not be used on something so subjective. A couple
of years ago, there was a big fuss kicked up in my home town because the
local council would not fund the purchase of a statue that was part of an
exhibition, so that it could be on permanent display here. Personally, I
supported the council, the statue concerned being, IMO, completely hideous.
So why should money that I have contributed to through my taxes be used for
something I personally did not want?
I am more than willing to support something I believe in, but I object to
being "forced" to support something I hate. So I will continue to support
my local theatre, local artists, pay my television licence fee, etc, etc, to
benefit from the things that I enjoy.
"Manmade954" > wrote in message
news:20000905041829...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
DgSWEET
The arts have been proven to be a highly effective way of opening up children
to education. Also, having students work together on non-competitive projects
(such as putting up shows or playing in orchestras) teaches them skills in
social cooperation that extends into other aspects of life. Kids who have
heavy access to arts education have been tracked to later accomplishments and
they (as a group) ALWAYS track higher. So arts aren't just something
"subjective," they are a tool for teaching socialization and motivating people
to look more deeply into subjects that artistic projects touch on.
Now there is a part of me that HATES having to pull out the utilitarian
argument for the arts. The arts aren't designed to be utilitarian, but there
just so happens to be a damn good utilitarian argument, so there it is. If
you're concerned about education, there are few better ways to motivate
students than to link programs to the study of the arts.
Karen Horn
: I would have to disagree with you that theatre is not something that everyone
: loves or benefits from.... Do you watch television? How about film? Both of
I musta missed the "TV tax" or the "Film Tax"
:And what about the fact that most major Law schools seem to prefer someone with
: a theatre background or community theatre involvement for admission? Does this
They love bullshit artists!!!!
BTW, when you're talking about spending money on the arts in schools:
I quite agree with you---it's part of a well rounded education.
Just like I think every student should be exposed to English [or
whatever the native tongue is], foreign language, math, science,
history, geography etc. --- every student should be exposed to the
arts.
Karen
Manmade954
Date: 9/7/2000 1:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <8p78rn$r59$1...@thoth.cts.com>>
>I musta missed the "TV tax" or the "Film Tax"
Or perhaps you just missed the point that I was trying to make that it takes
(in theory) trained actors to provide television programs and movies. I was
trying to say that there was more to the arts than just "theatre".
Karen Horn
: From: Karen Horn kah...@king.cts.com
Of course, however the government doesn't tax you to put on movies
and TV. Computer programmers need to be trained to so they can
write all the gee-whiz programming that goes into your VCR, but the
government doesn't slap a computer programmer training tax on top
of the price you pay when you buy a VCR. I'm sorry---I thought
that was fairly self-evident.
Karen
Pizzaman95
writes:
>
>Manmade954 <manma...@aol.com> wrote:
>: I would have to disagree with you that theatre is not something that
>everyone
>: loves or benefits from.... Do you watch television? How about film? Both
>of
>
>I musta missed the "TV tax" or the "Film Tax"
Move toi the UK and buy that damn medallion for the TV set. THey
even have spy trucks that go around to find who is watching BBC without
paying!
Tim Gowen
<pizza...@aol.com> writes
>Move toi the UK and buy that damn medallion for the TV set. THey
>even have spy trucks that go around to find who is watching BBC without
>paying!
Yes, in return for which we get decent TV and radio. If you don't have
a TV you don't have to pay anything, which means you get five national
radio stations and dozens of local radio stations for free. Then
there's the BBC website with all that text, audio and video content.
So despite the fact that you depict it in Stalinist terms, and although
Jennifer Kalman hated it too while she was here, it's actually a better
system than the States!
Tim
--
+ "I didn't get the money and I didn't get the girl. Pretty, isn't it?"
+ The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/
Stephen Farrow
>
> In article <20000907132909...@nso-cv.aol.com>, Pizzaman95
> <pizza...@aol.com> writes
> >Move toi the UK and buy that damn medallion for the TV set. THey
> >even have spy trucks that go around to find who is watching BBC without
> >paying!
>
> Yes, in return for which we get decent TV and radio. If you don't have
> a TV you don't have to pay anything, which means you get five national
> radio stations and dozens of local radio stations for free. Then
> there's the BBC website with all that text, audio and video content.
>
> So despite the fact that you depict it in Stalinist terms, and although
> Jennifer Kalman hated it too while she was here, it's actually a better
> system than the States!
Yep - I'd gladly pay a licence fee in exchange for better television
than the crap that's on offer here in Canada (OK, not the States, but we
get most of the same programming plus the Canadian stuff, which is
generally even worse).
Stephen
>
> Tim
>
> --
> + "I didn't get the money and I didn't get the girl. Pretty, isn't it?"
> + The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/
--
The Incredible Journey. Before a paper-clip reaches your stationery tray
it will have undergone over 800 separate manufacturing processes, none
of them interesting.
- Victoria Wood
Matthew Winn
<sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > Yes, in return for which we get decent TV and radio. If you don't have
> > a TV you don't have to pay anything, which means you get five national
> > radio stations and dozens of local radio stations for free. Then
> > there's the BBC website with all that text, audio and video content.
>
> Yep - I'd gladly pay a licence fee in exchange for better television
> than the crap that's on offer here in Canada (OK, not the States, but we
> get most of the same programming plus the Canadian stuff, which is
> generally even worse).
Me too. It costs well under two quid a week, and without the licence
fee we'd have over 33 hours more advertising over that period.
Matthew
David
> Yep - I'd gladly pay a licence fee in exchange for better
> television than the crap that's on offer here in Canada
> (OK, not the States, but we get most of the same
> programming plus the Canadian stuff, which is generally
> even worse).
Believe me, none of you have endured anything like the hell that is South
African television. And we pay a pretty penny for our licence fees.
:) David
_______________________________________________
"I to the world am like a drop water that in the ocean seeks another drop."
Donald Driver, from OH, BROTHER
Stephen Farrow
>
> Stephen Farrow <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote
>
> > Yep - I'd gladly pay a licence fee in exchange for better
> > television than the crap that's on offer here in Canada
> > (OK, not the States, but we get most of the same
> > programming plus the Canadian stuff, which is generally
> > even worse).
>
> Believe me, none of you have endured anything like the hell that is South
> African television. And we pay a pretty penny for our licence fees.
I believe you! I have a couple of friends who are originally from Cape
Town, and I've heard their stories. Though that doesn't make Canadian TV
any better. It's just that, having grown up with the BBC (and ITV/C4 -
there's some remarkably good work done on the commercial channels in the
UK as well), I'm spoiled.
Stephen
>
> :) David
> _______________________________________________
> "I to the world am like a drop water that in the ocean seeks another drop."
> Donald Driver, from OH, BROTHER
--
Noel Katz
that someone didn't see the value of Van Gogh, he began writing an opinion
column about starving artists (like his son) and the NEA!
For those who've come in late, here are arguments people have expressed against
government arts grants:
1) Someone said that his tax money going to something he doesn't support is
"immoral."
Don't all governments spend some of our tax dollars on some things we
don't like? I'm not fond of corporate welfare, tobacco subsidies and certain
obsolete defense systems my taxes are spent on. Less than ten cents of my tax
bill goes to arts; several hundred dollars goes to the unlovable things I just
mentioned. Calling the confiscation of one dime for arts grants "immoral" is a
risible expansion of the word's definition.
2) Governments fund ugly public sculptures.
I agree: they shouldn't do that. This usually happens on the local level,
so the Federalists who've suggested arts spending should all be done locally
need to answer this one. Can someone offer an example of an ugly public
sculpture paid for, in part, by the federal government?
3) "If art can't make it commercially, is it worth saving?"
This, I admit, stunned me. Can we agree, for a moment, that Vincent Van
Gogh is now considered one of the greatest painters ever? That his art is
beautiful and revolutionary? Well, I pointed out that he couldn't make it
commercially, having never sold a painting in his lifetime.
4) "How really would the world be worse off but for Van Gogh? Really, is
anyone better fed or housed because he lived and painted? What did he add to
the world?"
There's no arguing this: That the world is better off with Van Gogh
paintings is self-evident. If you can't see that, you are, by definition, a
philistine, unable to see the value of beautiful things.
5) Someone ridiculed the notion that the NEA could ever find the next Van Gogh.
After all, governments do so many things badly.
Hmmm. American shores haven't been attacked in a while; our people aren't
starving to death; under Clinton, former welfare-recipients found jobs. I
agree that finding the next Van Gogh may be more difficult than these others
accomplishments. That's why I mentioned that the NEA hires the best arts
experts they can find.
6) Finally, someone said the NEA doesn't hire experts; it's all political
appointments.
Many years ago, I met Jane Alexander, but I must admit I don't know anyone
who works for the NEA. I know a guy who reviews shows for New York State
Council on the Arts, and he's very much like myself. I had a college professor
who worked for the National Endowment for the Humanities. We're talking an
esteemed and venerable Ivy League chair-holder, or whatever they're called.
Sounds like an expert to me.
Both candidates for President, it was said here, support government arts
grants. So I guess you who object will have to find a country that doesn't do
this: Iran, Iraq, Libya and Somalia come to mind. All the Western
industrialized nations spend more per capita than the U.S.
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
eagl...@my-deja.com
noel...@aol.com (Noel Katz) wrote:
> For those who've come in late, here are arguments people have
expressed against
> government arts grants:
>
> 1) Someone said that his tax money going to something he doesn't
support is
> "immoral."
> Don't all governments spend some of our tax dollars on some
things we
> don't like? I'm not fond of corporate welfare, tobacco subsidies and
certain
> obsolete defense systems my taxes are spent on. Less than ten cents
of my tax
> bill goes to arts; several hundred dollars goes to the unlovable
things I just
> mentioned. Calling the confiscation of one dime for arts
grants "immoral" is a
> risible expansion of the word's definition.
>
tobacco subsidies (among other things) should be done away with, along
with the NEA, as all violate our individual rights, which, if you
consider individual rights to be a moral concept, IS immoral. Do you
consider rights to be merely a political concept, subject to the whim
of the next elected officials, or are rights the standard of morality
upon which political decisions should be based? I'm with the latter.
As to obsolete defense systems, our taxes should go to defense, since
defense serves in the protection of our individual rights, but pressure
should be mounted to use our tax money more wisely -- a matter of
procedure and not principle.
> 2) Governments fund ugly public sculptures.
> I agree: they shouldn't do that. This usually happens on the
local level,
> so the Federalists who've suggested arts spending should all be done
locally
> need to answer this one. Can someone offer an example of an ugly
public
> sculpture paid for, in part, by the federal government?
>
No one should have a government-enforced monopoly on deciding which art
is "ugly" and which is "beautiful." Beauty, need I remind you, is in
the eye of the beholder.
> 3) "If art can't make it commercially, is it worth saving?"
> This, I admit, stunned me. Can we agree, for a moment, that
Vincent Van
> Gogh is now considered one of the greatest painters ever? That his
art is
> beautiful and revolutionary? Well, I pointed out that he couldn't
make it
> commercially, having never sold a painting in his lifetime.
>
And the government came in with subsidies after his death and made him
famous???????
> 4) "How really would the world be worse off but for Van Gogh?
Really, is
> anyone better fed or housed because he lived and painted? What did
he add to
> the world?"
> There's no arguing this: That the world is better off with Van
Gogh
> paintings is self-evident. If you can't see that, you are, by
definition, a
> philistine, unable to see the value of beautiful things.
>
"The world...better off" -- in what way? Can you be specific? I will
grant you that some INDIVIDUALS are better off for the aesthetic
experience of a Van Gogh, but the "WORLD?" Take Van Gogh's paintings
away, and how would the world look different? Most people in the world
have never even seen a Van Gogh painting.
> 5) Someone ridiculed the notion that the NEA could ever find the next
Van Gogh.
> After all, governments do so many things badly.
> Hmmm. American shores haven't been attacked in a while; our
people aren't
> starving to death; under Clinton, former welfare-recipients found
jobs. I
> agree that finding the next Van Gogh may be more difficult than these
others
> accomplishments. That's why I mentioned that the NEA hires the best
arts
> experts they can find.
>
And these "experts" are hired according to what criteria? What makes
an individual an artistic "expert?"
> 6) Finally, someone said the NEA doesn't hire experts; it's all
political
> appointments.
> Many years ago, I met Jane Alexander, but I must admit I don't
know anyone
> who works for the NEA. I know a guy who reviews shows for New York
State
> Council on the Arts, and he's very much like myself. I had a college
professor
> who worked for the National Endowment for the Humanities. We're
talking an
> esteemed and venerable Ivy League chair-holder, or whatever they're
called.
> Sounds like an expert to me.
>
And who did he or she know in the government to get the NEH
appointment? Government officials just had a vision and sought him or
her out?
> Both candidates for President, it was said here, support government
arts
> grants. So I guess you who object will have to find a country that
doesn't do
> this: Iran, Iraq, Libya and Somalia come to mind. All the Western
> industrialized nations spend more per capita than the U.S.
>
But the U.S. is the one country in the world that's founded on the
concept of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, however imperfectly it has been and
continues to be applied. Do you want the concept to die? Is there to
be no nation on earth that should uphold this principle as consistently
as possible? We should only emulate industrialized, collectivized
governments like Great Britain, which (incredibly considering we're
already in the 21st Century), STILL HAS A MONARCHY!!!!!????
The difference between a collectivist country and one based on
individual rights in regard to government arts funding, is that a
country which respects individual rights, and therefore capitalism and
the free market, allows many collectivist writers, such as Tony Kushner
to be heard ("Angels in America" was a Broadway, commercial show,
albeit one which was helped by the NEA), but no collectivist country
would allow any writer who criticized collectivism to be heard. "Death
of a Salesman" had no NEA help, and yet the critical eye it casts on
our capitalistic society was the product of the commercial, free-
market, capitalistic theatre (as Arthur Miller himself reminded people
in his Tony acceptance speech the other year).
Let's see the NEA fund works which are critical of governmental
programs and collectivist societies, and maybe I'd be persuaded that
it's a fairer system.
Eagle
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DgSWEET
>programs and collectivist societies, and maybe I'd be persuaded that
>it's a fairer system.
The NEA funds works that are critical of government programs all of the time.
All of the time. Show me a play in the past twenty-five years that has PRAISED
government programs. I guarantee you, virtually all of the plays that have
critized government have indeed been funded by companies funded by the NEA.
Writers don't write plays thinking, "Oh, I'm gonna praise or disparage
collectivist societies." We think, "Gee, that character is neat. What
interesting situation can I put her/him into?" We pretty much know that plays
that begin with a political agenda are likely to be dull. Does that mean there
are no politics in plays? Of course not. Your politics seep in if you're
doing an adaptation of Mother Goose. But artists are swell, ungrateful folks
who will take money from the NEA and make nasty cracks about whoever is in
power (AN AMERICAN DAUGHTER certainly was critical of government and the power
elite; it was produced by Lincoln Center which gets funding from the NEA).
Tim Gowen
>As to obsolete defense systems, our taxes should go to defense, since
>defense serves in the protection of our individual rights, but pressure
>should be mounted to use our tax money more wisely -- a matter of
>procedure and not principle.
Oh, so you believe in taxing for DEFENCE?! What a surprise. You are
almost despicably naive for not realising - or duplicitous for missing
out - that war is legally waged by a political figure or a political
establishment in your joyous republic.
>No one should have a government-enforced monopoly on deciding which art
>is "ugly" and which is "beautiful." Beauty, need I remind you, is in
>the eye of the beholder.
Which makes it almost impossible to finance. Which means you don't have
to pay for it, but it's not your fault so someone else will have to deal
with the problem.
>And the government came in with subsidies after his death and made him
>famous???????
No, the museums grew naturally around his artwork.
>"The world...better off" -- in what way? Can you be specific? I will
>grant you that some INDIVIDUALS are better off for the aesthetic
>experience of a Van Gogh, but the "WORLD?" Take Van Gogh's paintings
>away, and how would the world look different? Most people in the world
>have never even seen a Van Gogh painting.
You're trying to get Noel to say something which will basically
exonerate you from any duty to pay anything towards art museums, so why
don't you just say you don't want to pay for any culture which you don't
personally enjoy. It would make it a lot easier, and Noel could go back
to writing musicals and you do whatever it is that the far-right do for
fun these days.
>But the U.S. is the one country in the world that's founded on the
>concept of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, however imperfectly it has been and
>continues to be applied. Do you want the concept to die? Is there to
>be no nation on earth that should uphold this principle as consistently
>as possible? We should only emulate industrialized, collectivized
>governments like Great Britain, which (incredibly considering we're
>already in the 21st Century), STILL HAS A MONARCHY!!!!!????
Well I'd rather the Queen had power and your type of thinker was a
ceremonial figure with no real power than the other way round. Both
Britain and America have their problems, but I'm afraid America's
problems are only just beginning if you think you know how to interpret
the constitution. I think you're basically just clothing yourself in
the star spangled banner until you've blind-sided enough people.
>Let's see the NEA fund works which are critical of governmental
>programs and collectivist societies, and maybe I'd be persuaded that
>it's a fairer system.
So you'd pay for a beaurocracy which helped to generate art on a single
theme. Have you read any George Orwell?
eagl...@my-deja.com
dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET) wrote:
Your politics seep in if you're
> doing an adaptation of Mother Goose. But artists are swell,
ungrateful folks
> who will take money from the NEA and make nasty cracks about whoever
is in
> power (AN AMERICAN DAUGHTER certainly was critical of government and
the power
> elite; it was produced by Lincoln Center which gets funding from the
NEA).
>
of government? Is it critical of government because it doesn't believe
the government should be involved in something to begin with, or that
the government isn't doing ENOUGH? Of course there are plenty of works
like that, but that's not what I meant by works being critical of
government. I meant the former.
DgSWEET
>of government? Is it critical of government because it doesn't believe
>the government should be involved in something to begin with, or that
>the government isn't doing ENOUGH? Of course there are plenty of works
>like that, but that's not what I meant by works being critical of
>government. I meant the former.
>
>Eagle
It is critical of cynicism and cowardice in the government.
You know, there are ways of being critical that don't conform with your narrow
perspective.
But there's little point of entering into a debate with you. You'll just hit
me with the usual slogans, and that offers too little nutrition ...
eagl...@my-deja.com
the time.
> All of the time.
Here's a short list of issues which I am not aware have ever been
tackled by recipients of NEA grants, but which I'd like to see:
1. The fact that communists DID exist in Hollywood during the McCarthy
era -- how about a sympathetic portrayal of Elia Kazan, for instance?
Think an NEA board would fund that?
2. The fact that not everyone who is anti-abortion is religious, and
that some atheists also think abortion is wrong. How about a
sympathetic story of a pro-life atheist? For that matter, how about a
sympathetic story of a pro-life Christian? How about a story about a
man who beats his girlfriend to death because she refuses to get an
abortion -- something that actually happened just around the same time
and in the same vicinity as the Matthew Shepard murder, but which got
virtually no national publicity? Think an NEA board would fund that?
3. The fact that some Jews themselves were involved in the early days
of the Nazi movement. Yeah, right.
4. The fact that many people's lives have been saved by guns. How
about a story of someone who follows the law and winds up unarmed, and
finds him or herself facing a would-be murderer who paid no attention
to the law and got a gun illegally?
I could go on and on. The NEA won't stop such plays getting written,
but it sure as hell makes it a lot harder for them to get produced.
People get on NEA panels because they represent the status quo -- they
are supposed to be "experts" in their field and are chosen BECAUSE they
have status in some way, and it self-perpetuates. But the truly
creative and unique artist with an individual vision is by definition
outside the mainstream of thought. Of course it's well-meaning to
pick "experts" and help fund theatres, but what is the result? What
passes for "expert" opinion is merely what fits in with the fashionable
ideas being floated at the moment, whether conventional or avante-
garde. The artist with a vision outside the current artistic trend
gets the deck stacked against him or her by government funding. The
amount of money the NEA doles out is indeed small, but it's influence
is enormous. People are sheep, and they're impressed if something has
a government seal of approval, whether it's actually justified or not.
Different ideas get marginalized with government funds. The NEA is
dumbing down art.
Why would anyone think that the existence of NEA helps guard against
having another Van Gogh go unnoticed? The fact is that Van Gogh did
not go unnoticed -- it just didn't happen in his lifetime,
unfortunately. In his lifetime, his ideas about art didn't fit in with
what was currently accepted, and his work was only appreciated after
society began to accept such ideas as valid. Having an NEA won't help
at all in such matters. It only encourages the artistic status quo --
so if anything, it only delays or extinguishes the possibility of
appreciating any new Van Goghs.
DgSWEET
how about a sympathetic portrayal of Elia Kazan, for instance? Think an NEA
board would fund that?
Oh, please, everybody knows communists existed in Hollywood. Never been
questioned. The issue is whether communists in Hollywood ever did anything
illegal by virtue of being in Hollywood. Since freedom of speech and
association are legal, the answer is no.
By the way, when Reagen went to the Soviet Union, he took with him as a gift a
film that he thought represented the best of America -- FRIENDLY PERSUASION.
What the orange dolt didn't realize was this super-American film he loved had
in fact been written by Michael Wilson whose name wasn't allowed on it because
he and his red-baiting buddies had blacklisted Wilson. On the original print
of the movie, there is no screenplay credit, which gives the impression that
the movie wrote itself. ( Wilson died without people knowing he'd written or
co-written this, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. The
credits were given to him posthumously. A great comfort, I'm sure.)
Your understanding of Kazan is obviously superficial. The objection to him
isn't to his politics (which are still fairly liberal, by the way), but to his
behavior in cooperating with thugs on the Committee (many of whom went to jail
themselves because, like Mundt and Nixon, they were crooks). John Ford was a
conservative guy, to say the least, and yet he's a hero to me because he stood
up to that old bastard de Mille who wanted to blacklist fellow directors in a
Directors Guild meeting.
I did write a play with a character loosely based on Kazan, and some people who
know and who are friendly with him think, despite my not embracing what he did
with the Committee, that it's a fair view of a guy who did what he did. He's
not a pure villain in my piece, and the fact that you are meant to have some
feeling for someone who did something fairly reprehensible is part of the
point. People don't just wear hats with colors announcing whether they're good
or bad people. In my view, most evil isn't done out of a desire to commit evil,
but out of weakness. I think Kazan was weak.
To be anti-Kazan isn't to be pro-communist, by the way. It's just to be
against someone who secured his career on the backs of friends he dragged down.
Not a single person he named was ever proved to have done anything illegal.
Not one.
>2. The fact that not everyone who is anti-abortion is religious, and that
some atheists also think abortion is wrong. How about a sympathetic story of a
pro-life atheist? For that matter, how about a sympathetic story of a pro-life
Christian? How about a story about a man who beats his girlfriend to death
because she refuses to get an abortion -- something that actually happened just
around the same time and in the same vicinity as the Matthew Shepard murder,
but which got virtually no national publicity? Think an NEA board would fund
that?
You know, you have this idea that the NEA sits around and funds individual
plays. They don't. They give money to a variety of groups, and the groups
then use the money according to the dictates of their own esthetics. (Charlton
Heston, for whom I otherwise have precious little use, is a big supporter of
the NEA.) As far as I know, most theatres would be happy to put on a play that
raises some controversy as long as it's a well-written play. Mamet's OLEANNA
is not a play widely liked by feminists, for instance, yet it is widely done
because he suggest some upsetting things with a fair amount of art.
>3. The fact that some Jews themselves were involved in the early days of the
Nazi movement. Yeah, right.
I have never seen or heard any documentation to support this.
On the other hand, I have indeed heard of Jews who were kapos in the camps and
who did violence to fellow Jews. I've written a play based on one of them.
It's called THE ACTION AGAINST SOL SCHUMANN and it premieres in an
NEA-supported theatre this spring. I expect it will make some people
uncomfortable, and it should. It makes ME uncomfortable. That's why I wrote
it.
>4. The fact that many people's lives have been saved by guns. How about a
story of someone who follows the law and winds up unarmed, and finds him or
herself facing a would-be murderer who paid no attention to the law and got a
gun illegally?
Hey, that's on TV all the time. What do we need another one of those for?
>I could go on and on. The NEA won't stop such plays getting written, but it
sure as hell makes it a lot harder for them to get produced. People get on NEA
panels because they represent the status quo -- they are supposed to be
"experts" in their field and are chosen BECAUSE they have status in some way,
and it self-perpetuates. But the truly creative and unique artist with an
individual vision is by definition outside the mainstream of thought. Of
course it's well-meaning to pick "experts" and help fund theatres, but what is
the result? What passes for "expert" opinion is merely what fits in with the
fashionable ideas being floated at the moment, whether conventional or
avante-garde. The artist with a vision outside the current artistic trend gets
the deck stacked against him or her by government funding. The
amount of money the NEA doles out is indeed small, but it's influence
-- Uh, I think you mean "its influence" -- the possessive of "it" is "its" --
>is enormous. People are sheep, and they're impressed if something has a
government seal of approval, whether it's actually justified or not.
What an upbeat view of human nature you have. People are sheep?
>Different ideas get marginalized with government funds. The NEA is dumbing
down art.
You really don't understand how the grants are distributed or how projects
actually get done. Nobody at any of the theatres I've worked at has ever had
to go in front of an NEA panel to justify or explain doing any of my work.
>Why would anyone think that the existence of NEA helps guard against aving
another Van Gogh go unnoticed? The fact is that Van Gogh did not go unnoticed
-- it just didn't happen in his lifetime, unfortunately. In his lifetime, his
ideas about art didn't fit in with what was currently accepted, and his work
was only appreciated after society began to accept such ideas as valid. Having
an NEA won't help at all in such matters. It only encourages the artistic
status quo -- so if anything, it only delays or extinguishes the possibility of
appreciating any new Van Goghs.
Nonsense. Absolutely fallacious reasoning. Because some artists of vision
always are overlooked in their time, this means that an outfit that supports
organizations that supports the arts increases the likelihood that more
talented artists will go unseen? This makes no sense whatsoever. There isn't
a link of logic to be found in such a silly assertion.
In fact, the more arts institutions there are, the more people are likely to be
exposed to and fall in love with the arts and support other artists, NEA-funded
or not. NEA-supported institutions introduce the idea of art to people who
otherwise might not have the economic wherewithal to have it as part of their
lives. Outreach programs are common in NEA-supported institutions. Cutting
arts funding is another way of stealing from the poor and marginalized.
Eagle, you're just coming up with the slogans and fallacies I expected. And
you betray a stunning lack of understanding of what is being written and
performed around the country.
eagl...@my-deja.com
Tim Gowen <t...@equipoise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8plvmi$7q3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eagl...@my-deja.com writes
>
> >As to obsolete defense systems, our taxes should go to defense, since
> >defense serves in the protection of our individual rights, but
pressure
> >should be mounted to use our tax money more wisely -- a matter of
> >procedure and not principle.
>
> Oh, so you believe in taxing for DEFENCE?! What a surprise. You are
> almost despicably naive for not realising - or duplicitous for missing
> out - that war is legally waged by a political figure or a political
> establishment in your joyous republic.
Thank goodness collectivist governments act differently.
>
> >No one should have a government-enforced monopoly on deciding which
art
> >is "ugly" and which is "beautiful." Beauty, need I remind you, is in
> >the eye of the beholder.
>
> Which makes it almost impossible to finance. Which means you don't
have
> to pay for it, but it's not your fault so someone else will have to
deal
> with the problem.
>
Which means you hold a low opinion of art consumers for not having the
same self-righteous enlightenment that you have to know what is
beautiful and what is not.
> >And the government came in with subsidies after his death and made
him
> >famous???????
>
> No, the museums grew naturally around his artwork.
>
> >"The world...better off" -- in what way? Can you be specific? I
will
> >grant you that some INDIVIDUALS are better off for the aesthetic
> >experience of a Van Gogh, but the "WORLD?" Take Van Gogh's paintings
> >away, and how would the world look different? Most people in the
world
> >have never even seen a Van Gogh painting.
>
> You're trying to get Noel to say something which will basically
> exonerate you from any duty to pay anything towards art museums, so
why
> don't you just say you don't want to pay for any culture which you
don't
> personally enjoy.
I don't want to, and I don't think you or anyone else should pay for
any culture which you don't personally enjoy. Why don't you just admit
that you're an elitist who holds a condescending, self-righteous
attitude toward others, and wants to play parent?
It would make it a lot easier, and Noel could go back
> to writing musicals and you do whatever it is that the far-right do
for
> fun these days.
>
What do the far right do for fun? I have no idea since I'm nowhere
near the far right, if that's what you're ignorantly presuming.
However, YOU sound just like a far-right Nazi -- advocating government
force to coerce those who disagree with you into supporting your goals.
> >But the U.S. is the one country in the world that's founded on the
> >concept of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, however imperfectly it has been and
> >continues to be applied. Do you want the concept to die? Is there
to
> >be no nation on earth that should uphold this principle as
consistently
> >as possible? We should only emulate industrialized, collectivized
> >governments like Great Britain, which (incredibly considering we're
> >already in the 21st Century), STILL HAS A MONARCHY!!!!!????
>
> Well I'd rather the Queen had power and your type of thinker was a
> ceremonial figure with no real power than the other way round.
Well, that says it all about where you're coming from. You'd rather
have hereditary power than democracy.
Both
> Britain and America have their problems, but I'm afraid America's
> problems are only just beginning if you think you know how to
interpret
> the constitution. I think you're basically just clothing yourself in
> the star spangled banner until you've blind-sided enough people.
For what purpose would I be trying to blind-side anyone? I'm seeking a
level artistic playing field, not one that stacks the deck against
certain ideas.
>
> >Let's see the NEA fund works which are critical of governmental
> >programs and collectivist societies, and maybe I'd be persuaded that
> >it's a fairer system.
>
> So you'd pay for a beaurocracy which helped to generate art on a
single
> theme. Have you read any George Orwell?
You're arguing a straw man. The whole point of what I'm saying is that
the NEA is STIFLING a diversity of artistic ideas, and I'm looking for
more inclusion -- not to generate art on a single theme. Anyway, the
NEA will never fund works critical of the existence of governmental
programs like the NEA, not so long as NEA panels are made up of
fallible human beings who tend to act in their own self-interest
(however much they may claim that they have "higher" goals).
Herone
>NEA will never fund works critical of the existence of governmental
>programs like the NEA, not so long as NEA panels are made up of
>fallible human beings who tend to act in their own self-interest
>(however much they may claim that they have "higher" goals).
Again, I don't think you know diddly about how "governmental" panels re: the
arts are set up. I got a grant from the Ohio Arts Council for a musical that
in part explicitly critiqued/made fun of the NEA artist grants, and artists who
got them! (My musical STAR WARES: THE NEXT GENERATION. Details on my web
page.)
Linda Eisenstein her...@en.com http://www.en.com/users/herone
DgSWEET
>the NEA is STIFLING a diversity of artistic ideas, and I'm looking for
>more inclusion -- not to generate art on a single theme.
You have come up with not one bit of persuasive argument or evidence to support
your thesis. Not one. Sheer cheerful perversity doesn't count as intellectual
argument.
And I doubt if you'd find many (if any) artists who think they'll have a better
shot at having their particular work appreciated by having the NEA closed down.
But then, you know better than the artists, don't you?
Tim Gowen
>> Oh, so you believe in taxing for DEFENCE?! What a surprise. You are
>> almost despicably naive for not realising - or duplicitous for missing
>> out - that war is legally waged by a political figure or a political
>> establishment in your joyous republic.
>
>Thank goodness collectivist governments act differently.
I think you missed an opportunity to defend your attitude to defence.
>> Which makes it almost impossible to finance. Which means you don't
>have
>> to pay for it, but it's not your fault so someone else will have to
>deal
>> with the problem.
>>
>Which means you hold a low opinion of art consumers for not having the
>same self-righteous enlightenment that you have to know what is
>beautiful and what is not.
Not what I said at all. You want to make an argument against public
funding of anything other than defence.
>> You're trying to get Noel to say something which will basically
>> exonerate you from any duty to pay anything towards art museums, so
>why
>> don't you just say you don't want to pay for any culture which you
>don't
>> personally enjoy.
>
>I don't want to, and I don't think you or anyone else should pay for
>any culture which you don't personally enjoy. Why don't you just admit
>that you're an elitist who holds a condescending, self-righteous
>attitude toward others, and wants to play parent?
Well I'm definitely elitist compared to some. I'm talking about a few
pennies per head to fund a theatre. And it's better to be a parent than
the larval stage of a fascist fellow-traveller.
>What do the far right do for fun? I have no idea since I'm nowhere
>near the far right, if that's what you're ignorantly presuming.
>However, YOU sound just like a far-right Nazi -- advocating government
>force to coerce those who disagree with you into supporting your goals.
I'm talking about a few pennies to fund a theatre. That sort of thing,
anyway. If you're poor, you don't pay tax.
You're talking about funding only defence. If you're poor, you fuck off
and don't expect any hand-outs.
In my society, if you disagree then you vote. In your society, I'm
assuming the knock at the door in the middle of the night and sudden
disappearance is your chosen method. Before you get your talons out,
that's how societies of the type you're advocating function.
>> Well I'd rather the Queen had power and your type of thinker was a
>> ceremonial figure with no real power than the other way round.
>
>Well, that says it all about where you're coming from. You'd rather
>have hereditary power than democracy.
You missed the part about the Queen having only ceremonial role, and you
inadvertently used the word 'democracy' to describe what you believe in.
>For what purpose would I be trying to blind-side anyone? I'm seeking a
>level artistic playing field, not one that stacks the deck against
>certain ideas.
You want the NEA to only fund works which are critical of governmental
programs and collectivist societies. That's not a level playing field:
it's a recipe for state-sanctioned art which is ONLY political. You're
blind-siding people by giving them a lot of money and allowing them to
pay for their own amenities. What happens to those who can't? FUCK
THEM! You don't care. Stage 2 is where those who get a rough deal from
you start to fight back. Stage 3 is when your government gets rid of
them in lunatic asylums or worse, and you start to weasel out of any
moral attachment to the new state of affairs. Neither Communist Russia
or Nazi Germany survived for long, and neither will the America which
you'd so love to have.
>Have you read any George Orwell?
>
>You're arguing a straw man. The whole point of what I'm saying is that
>the NEA is STIFLING a diversity of artistic ideas, and I'm looking for
>more inclusion -- not to generate art on a single theme. Anyway, the
>NEA will never fund works critical of the existence of governmental
>programs like the NEA, not so long as NEA panels are made up of
>fallible human beings who tend to act in their own self-interest
>(however much they may claim that they have "higher" goals).
Have you read any George Orwell?
Pizzaman95
(DgSWEET) writes:
>
>>It shocks me that more people don't protest the police tactics in Philly
>>during the convention. Just imagine if it was Rudy. Could it be because
>>Mayor Street is (a) black and (b) Democratic that the press let him alone?
>>
>
>Your comments on the assumption that blacks and Jews get free rides in the
>press might lead one to some assumptions.
>
>And the Philly police HAVEN'T gotten a free ride. Articles on this have
>appeared in the Chicago papers, for instance. I don't give a damn what color
>the mayor is. If his police are behaving in this way, he should bre held
>accountable.
>
>I take it from your shock that you're going to issue a protest? Good, glad
>to
>have you on the barricades for a worthy cause.
Hey, what a second. I didn't mention Jews anywhere and didn't think this
was a Jewish issue. The point about Street being black is that we always
seem to limit our comments on police brutality to white-led police forces.
I am against any limits on peaceful public protest and believe Street's
police force was more concerned with avoiding a "Chicago" convention
than with safeguarding rights. I do indeed stand beside you on this.
Tim Gowen
>The government of the United States exists to protect individual
>rights, which are done through three branches of the government -- the
>police, the courts and the military. Granted, the Constitution allowed
>for certain inconsistencies (the most terrible being the continuation
>of slavery -- which it inherited from the monarchy of Britain,
>wonderful system that it is)
Well why did you take so long to abolish it if it was so patently not
the done thing? Why did one of your hallowed political parties support
it (the Democratic Party) if it wasn't the American way? I know all
about the problems that the UK had and has, and most of the latter are
down to selfishness and political naivite.
>but in principle it's basis is in
>individual rights. Anything the government does that rests on any
>collective ideals is inappropriate and undercuts the strength and
>uniqueness of the U.S. government.
Individual right are fine, but they've existed in America for a long
time without any dumb prick deciding to fund only defence and law
enforcement, so your collectivist v. individualist argument hasn't
exactly been impressing me, although well done for making the effort.
>So you admit you're an elitist
"Compared to some" I said. You don't want to pay for art you don't
want, so you can't really enjoy art. If you enjoyed it you'd want to go
and see it, but the only way you'd see it in your system is to buy the
paining or whatever. Or, you'd have a very expensive museum which is
paid for only by individuals who want to see the painting, or whatever.
The National Gallery in London is free, and presumably that's because
we're an evil collectivist society peopled with individuals who can
recognise warmed-up right wing views.
People are fundamentally selfish. Most people don't understand that tax
is how society pays for things like healthcare. The same people will
praise a government for pumping money into healthcare and curse them for
raising tax, and not realise the folly of their argument. I don't blame
you for that, and I don't blame them for thinking it. I'm sorry they
do, but I'm alarmed that you're happy to exploit that individual trait
for right-wing political aims.
>and want to play parent. Okay, at least
>you're honest, but you're admitting that you want power and control
>over others, just like the fascists you condemn.
I don't want power. I want a Government-funded health service and taxes
spent on sensible causes like the National Theatre, National Gallery and
so on. I don't know if you've been to Britain, but we're not exactly a
left-wing country at heart and most people are happy with the things
I've mentioned.
> Don't you know that
>fascism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin? The Nazis
>were the National SOCIALIST party, after all. I want nothing to do
>with either of them, no matter what knee-jerk reaction you think is
>appropriate to someone who merely disagrees with you.
I said that your desired spending will create an underclass which will
start to become a problem. Eventually they will be done away with, and
while you won't be personally involved you will have consented to the
root cause of the problem. You wouldn't personally advocate anything
unpleasant, but that is the result you will get, I guarantee.
>Do you routinely ascribe evil motives to anyone who doesn't
>agree with you?
Funding only defence and law enforcement is evil, and I ascribe evil
motives to those who advocate it. So, the answer to your question is
no. Do I find your political views evil? Absolutely.
I don't need to worry though because Libertarians have been engaging in
mutual masturbation for so long, and it doesn't show any sign of
reaching any sort of pleasing climax for any of you.
>I hardly used the word "democracy" inadvertently. You're the admitted
>elitist, not me. And what was there to miss? You want "my type of
>thinker" to be a ceremonial figure without real power, while your type,
>who ascribes evil motives to dissenters,
I don't.
> assumes a real power on the
>throne. Okay, I got you.
You don't.
> You're a power lusting elitist.
I'm not. I just care about the consequences of politics. I care, you
don't think it's your problem. Nobody owes you and you don't owe
anyone. If you got the government you really want, I know what would
happen. It doesn't matter if you're right-wing or not.
>You have a
>right to think anything you want, so long as you don't resort to force
>to impose your will on others.
I agree, but there are those who wouldn't, and they will hold sway if
ordinary people have been paid off and convinced that they don't have to
worry about anything other than their own problems.
DgSWEET
>was a Jewish issue. The point about Street being black is that we always
>seem to limit our comments on police brutality to white-led police forces.
You mentioned Jews in a previous post when you wondered why there weren't any
plays about Jews collaborating with Nazis.
>I am against any limits on peaceful public protest and believe Street's police
force was more concerned with avoiding a "Chicago" convention than with
safeguarding rights. I do indeed stand beside you on this.
Good. Write a letter to Street and to the good folks of Philly in their
newspapers. I'm organizing a protest through the Dramatists Guild.
Pizzaman95
(DgSWEET) writes:
>
>>Hey, what a second. I didn't mention Jews anywhere and didn't think this
>>was a Jewish issue. The point about Street being black is that we always
>>seem to limit our comments on police brutality to white-led police forces.
>
>You mentioned Jews in a previous post when you wondered why there weren't any
>plays about Jews collaborating with Nazis.
Wrong person, Mr. Sweet. T'weren't I. I have NO KNOWLEDGE at all
of any Jews collaborating with Nazis. I am sure it must have happened
but I am not on that soapbox.
DgSWEET
>any
>>plays about Jews collaborating with Nazis.
>
>Wrong person, Mr. Sweet. T'weren't I. I have NO KNOWLEDGE at all
>of any Jews collaborating with Nazis. I am sure it must have happened
>but I am not on that soapbox.
My apology, then.
Matthew Winn
> We should only emulate industrialized, collectivized
> governments like Great Britain, which (incredibly considering we're
> already in the 21st Century), STILL HAS A MONARCHY!!!!!????
But at least in poor little Britain, still suffering under the burden
of a monarchy, we're educated enough to know that we won't be in the
21st century for another three and a half months.
Matthew
eagl...@my-deja.com
Tim Gowen <t...@equipoise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8po42o$mrp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eagl...@my-deja.com writes
>
> motives to those who advocate it. So, the answer to your question is
> no. Do I find your political views evil? Absolutely.
>
last post point by point, or even to ask you questions so that you can
further clarify your own beliefs. Apparently, nothing I could possibly
say or ask will be interpreted by you as anything less than that of
evil intention.
It's just like trying to talk with right wing Bible-thumping Christian
fundamentalists, who claim that you are an agent of the Devil if you
say anything which even appears to contradict their cherished beliefs.
Their minds are made up and shut tight against any new information, and
you can't possibly expect to engage in a reasonable argument with them -
- so why even try?
Stephen Farrow
> I'm not familiar with AN AMERICAN DAUGHTER. In what way is it critical
> of government? Is it critical of government because it doesn't believe
> the government should be involved in something to begin with, or that
> the government isn't doing ENOUGH? Of course there are plenty of works
> like that, but that's not what I meant by works being critical of
> government. I meant the former.
It doesn't necessarily have to be either of those.
Here's a wild idea. Why not get hold of a copy and actually read it, so
that you can contruct an *informed* opinion?
Stephen
>
> Eagle
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
DgSWEET
it, so
that you can contruct an *informed* opinion?
A shocking idea. If such a concept took hold, you'd have lots of people
arguing about things they actually KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT. This could spell the
death of newsgroups as we know them.
Pizzaman95
>
>I was out of town visiting my father for a few days, and Dad was so shocked
>that someone didn't see the value of Van Gogh, he began writing an opinion
>column about starving artists (like his son) and the NEA!
If your dad was shocked, too bad. Question remains--in what demonstrable
way is the world better off having had Van Gogh? Put differently, if we had
1/2 of the masters we actually had, would the world be worse off? Would
the art hanging on the walls in place of the Van Gogh works be so inferior?
Would anyone be less well? You haven't given a single reason why the
world would have been worse off with 1 less painter. As far as I know, he
has done nothing to feed the hungry or clothe the poor. We'd still have
museums. We'd still have art. Any if your dad thinks I am philistine for
thinking so, I should say he is an ass for trying to make an argument without
proof. Nobody said we'd be better off without Van Gogh, but if you assume he
never lived, please tell me (or have your dad tell me) how life would be
different--
and let's leave the namecalling and the gratuitous comments out of it. Look
at the question being posed---take all the Van Gogh paintings off the wall,
replace
them with other paintings, wipe all knowledge of Van Gogh from your mind--
how many lives would truly be different than they are?
I am offended by the continued view that someone is a philistine simply
because they recognize the truth that the world would be largely unaffected
by replacing one artist with another---such is the true beauty of art. There
is
no sing "correct" way to paint and you could eliminate entire schools of art
and
still have great museums. Let's debate the question and not personalize it.
I have great respect for you Noel and let the first personal slight go--but
let's
not repeat it and let's not argue past each other.
eagl...@my-deja.com
your website, but found nothing on it in either the description of the
show or in the snatches of reviews that point to this critique of NEA
artist grants and the artists who got them. How big a part of the show
was it? Could you elaborate on just how you critiqued and made fun of
them? Did the Ohio Arts Council actually see your whole script, or did
they make the grant based on a description of the play, and if so, how
much did you describe this NEA critique in your description? Did you
have anything in it critiquing the Ohio Arts Council itself and its
grant recipients, not just the NEA and its grant recipients?
What I gather from your website is that the show predominantly has a
heavy doomsday environmentalist and anti-nuke point of view, which
seems to be right in keeping with the kind of typical politically
correct views that government arts organizations routinely fund. I
really doubt your play questions the validity of the global warming
theory, for instance (it is very questionable THEORY and NOT FACT,
despite what the major media would have you believe). The website
describes the play as: "A satiric sci-fi rock opera. A radical graffiti
artist and his activist gang link up with a suburban family -- taking
on evil developers, the Military Industrial Entertainment Complex, &
Sludge Monsters from Wango-Wango (who are secretly running everything) -
- to save the planet from eco-disaster." Is it really satire, or a
parody? There's a difference. Satire implies ridicule and a call for
change, while parody is affectionate poking fun at something. Does
your play actually ridicule people who fight against "evil developers,
the Military Industrial Entertainment Complex, etc. or just poke
affectionate fun at them, since they seem to be on your side
metaphysically? Or is the satire aimed at the "evil developers," etc.
themselves? Or is it satirical of sci-fi or rock opera?
What exactly IS your critique of NEA artists? I suspect that you have
some moment in it which "makes fun" of an NEA artist (some Karen Finley
type smearing some other substance over her body, perhaps?), but it
doesn't seem very important to the show as a whole -- not from your
website at least, unless I missed something. Oh, sure, the NEA or the
Ohio Arts Council now and then might throw a bone to something which
incorporates a mild "critique" of NEA artists, or something vaguely
critical of a government program, but I hardly think it's par for the
course. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if shown some proof.
DgSWEET
world because this or that artist lived. Perhaps selling Van Gogh postcards
helped make the difference for a French street vendor. Perhaps looking at
"Starry Night" gave hope to a potential suicide. Perhaps being the basis of
the film LUST FOR LIFE meant that two people on the crew who wouldn't have
otherwise met did indeed meet, married, and produced a child who is even now
working on a cure for tinnitus.
To say that we can't measure the practical good that comes from a painter is
not in itself a valid argument that the painter has added nothing. The value
is something we sense, just as some sense (without empircal evidence) the
presence of God.
eagl...@my-deja.com
Tim Gowen <t...@equipoise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8pmg9r$s67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eagl...@my-deja.com writes
>
> >> Oh, so you believe in taxing for DEFENCE?! What a surprise. You
are
> >> almost despicably naive for not realising - or duplicitous for
missing
> >> out - that war is legally waged by a political figure or a
political
> >> establishment in your joyous republic.
> >
> >Thank goodness collectivist governments act differently.
>
> I think you missed an opportunity to defend your attitude to defence.
>
rights, which are done through three branches of the government -- the
police, the courts and the military. Granted, the Constitution allowed
for certain inconsistencies (the most terrible being the continuation
of slavery -- which it inherited from the monarchy of Britain,
individual rights. Anything the government does that rests on any
collective ideals is inappropriate and undercuts the strength and
uniqueness of the U.S. government.
> >> Which makes it almost impossible to finance. Which means you don't
> >have
> >> to pay for it, but it's not your fault so someone else will have to
> >deal
> >> with the problem.
> >>
> >Which means you hold a low opinion of art consumers for not having
the
> >same self-righteous enlightenment that you have to know what is
> >beautiful and what is not.
>
> Not what I said at all. You want to make an argument against public
> funding of anything other than defence.
>
No, the courts and the police should be funded as well.
> >> You're trying to get Noel to say something which will basically
> >> exonerate you from any duty to pay anything towards art museums, so
> >why
> >> don't you just say you don't want to pay for any culture which you
> >don't
> >> personally enjoy.
> >
> >I don't want to, and I don't think you or anyone else should pay for
> >any culture which you don't personally enjoy. Why don't you just
admit
> >that you're an elitist who holds a condescending, self-righteous
> >attitude toward others, and wants to play parent?
>
> Well I'm definitely elitist compared to some. I'm talking about a few
> pennies per head to fund a theatre. And it's better to be a parent
than
> the larval stage of a fascist fellow-traveller.
>
So you admit you're an elitist and want to play parent. Okay, at least
you're honest, but you're admitting that you want power and control
over others, just like the fascists you condemn. Don't you know that
fascism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin? The Nazis
were the National SOCIALIST party, after all. I want nothing to do
with either of them, no matter what knee-jerk reaction you think is
appropriate to someone who merely disagrees with you.
> >What do the far right do for fun? I have no idea since I'm nowhere
> >near the far right, if that's what you're ignorantly presuming.
> >However, YOU sound just like a far-right Nazi -- advocating
government
> >force to coerce those who disagree with you into supporting your
goals.
>
> I'm talking about a few pennies to fund a theatre. That sort of
thing,
> anyway. If you're poor, you don't pay tax.
>
> You're talking about funding only defence. If you're poor, you fuck
off
> and don't expect any hand-outs.
>
> In my society, if you disagree then you vote. In your society, I'm
> assuming the knock at the door in the middle of the night and sudden
> disappearance is your chosen method. Before you get your talons out,
> that's how societies of the type you're advocating function.
>
You make a lot of unwarranted and unjustified assumptions. You don't
seem to have a clue as to where I'm coming from. All you're aware of
is that someone disagrees with you, and right away, you react as if
they were an evil fascist, ready to take you away in the middle of the
night. Do you routinely ascribe evil motives to anyone who doesn't
agree with you?
> >> Well I'd rather the Queen had power and your type of thinker was a
> >> ceremonial figure with no real power than the other way round.
> >
> >Well, that says it all about where you're coming from. You'd rather
> >have hereditary power than democracy.
>
> You missed the part about the Queen having only ceremonial role, and
you
> inadvertently used the word 'democracy' to describe what you believe
in.
>
I hardly used the word "democracy" inadvertently. You're the admitted
elitist, not me. And what was there to miss? You want "my type of
thinker" to be a ceremonial figure without real power, while your type,
who ascribes evil motives to dissenters, assumes a real power on the
throne. Okay, I got you. You're a power lusting elitist. You have a
right to think anything you want, so long as you don't resort to force
to impose your will on others.
> >For what purpose would I be trying to blind-side anyone? I'm
seeking a
> >level artistic playing field, not one that stacks the deck against
> >certain ideas.
>
> You want the NEA to only fund works which are critical of governmental
> programs and collectivist societies.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I don't want the NEA funding ANYTHING, even if it's
the most bland, non-controversial piece of crap, which is where most of
the NEA money goes anyway -- to already established, major institutions
like the Metropolitan Opera, etc. I'm sorry if I gave the impression
that I was prescribing some single-themed standard of selection for NEA
grants by saying that it would be fairer if the NEA funded works
critical of government programs, but I certainly didn't mean it to
imply that the NEA would be okay with me if that's all it did. Let me
make this clear once again -- I DON'T BELIEVE THE NEA SHOULD EXIST AT
ALL!
That's not a level playing field:
> it's a recipe for state-sanctioned art which is ONLY political.
You're
> blind-siding people by giving them a lot of money and allowing them to
> pay for their own amenities. What happens to those who can't? FUCK
> THEM! You don't care. Stage 2 is where those who get a rough deal
from
> you start to fight back. Stage 3 is when your government gets rid of
> them in lunatic asylums or worse, and you start to weasel out of any
> moral attachment to the new state of affairs. Neither Communist
Russia
> or Nazi Germany survived for long, and neither will the America which
> you'd so love to have.
>
The business about the level playing field is irrelevant, since you're
arguing a straw man position that I was not actually advocating.
Neither Communist Russia nor Nazi Germany had governments based on
individual rights, but rather on collectivized rights, which allowed
them to justify knocking on doors in the middle of the night and take
away anyone who was deemed an enemy of the state. Just like you
probably would with me, if you had the chance. How else would an
elitist like you deal with dissenters in a country where you had power
over them? If the U.S. were to adopt a policy of rounding up
dissenters and putting them in lunatic asylums or worse, then it would
happen despite its principle of individual rights, not because of that
principle.
> >Have you read any George Orwell?
> >
> >You're arguing a straw man. The whole point of what I'm saying is
that
> >the NEA is STIFLING a diversity of artistic ideas, and I'm looking
for
> >more inclusion -- not to generate art on a single theme. Anyway, the
> >NEA will never fund works critical of the existence of governmental
> >programs like the NEA, not so long as NEA panels are made up of
> >fallible human beings who tend to act in their own self-interest
> >(however much they may claim that they have "higher" goals).
>
> Have you read any George Orwell?
>
Yes, "1984." So what? Tie it to your point, and maybe I'd have
something to respond to. Have you read the paragraph you quoted from
me above, where I say I'm looking for inclusion? You obviously didn't,
because you went ahead and attacked me again for advocating an NEA
that "only fund works which are critical of governmental programs and
collectivist societies," as you said further above.
DgSWEET
There is no huge elitist lobby behind the NEA, or it would be funded a hell of
a lot more than it is.
A government is not just structure and theory. It is also practice. People
are elected on the assumption that they are there to represent their
constituents' interests. Obviously, some of their constituents have different,
even contrary interests. But enough officials, reflecting what they believed
to be enough constituents, decided to create the NEA.
You don't believe this to be appropriate. Well, too bad. Your views have been
taken into account but they didn't weigh sufficiently heavy in the balance to
offset the vast majority who do want federal funding of the arts.
Now, what are you going to do about it? Keep posting here? Try to win
converts here? I would wish you luck, but it would be hypocritical.
I wish you would take the energy you are putting into this and apply it to
something good. For instance, the Philadelphia police, because they didn't
like the Redmoon puppet theatre's intent to stage an anti-Bush puppet show
during the Republican convention, imprisoned the troupe for eleven days and
destroyed their puppets. (By the way, they have an NEA grant, so it's one
governmental institution -- the Philly police -- oppressing a group supported
by another government institution.) This is a gross encroachment on individual
freedom and the right to express dissent. I invite you to protest to the
Philadelphia police citing their brutality, the violation of human rights, and
the destruction of property. Just your kind of cause, yes?
Pizzaman95
(DgSWEET) writes:
>
>I wish you would take the energy you are putting into this and apply it to
>something good. For instance, the Philadelphia police, because they didn't
>like the Redmoon puppet theatre's intent to stage an anti-Bush puppet show
>during the Republican convention, imprisoned the troupe for eleven days and
>destroyed their puppets. (By the way, they have an NEA grant, so it's one
>governmental institution -- the Philly police -- oppressing a group supported
>by another government institution.) This is a gross encroachment on
>individual
>freedom and the right to express dissent. I invite you to protest to the
>Philadelphia police citing their brutality, the violation of human rights,
>and
>the destruction of property. Just your kind of cause, yes?
>
It shocks me that more people don't protest the police tactics in Philly
DgSWEET
>during the convention. Just imagine if it was Rudy. Could it be because
>Mayor Street is (a) black and (b) Democratic that the press let him alone?
>
Your comments on the assumption that blacks and Jews get free rides in the
Noel Katz
>I am offended by the continued view that someone is a philistine simply
>because they recognize the truth that the world would be largely unaffected
>by replacing one artist with another
AOL's on-line dictionary:
Philistine: a person who is guided by materialism and is usu. disdainful of
intellectual or artistic values
I've not indulged in name-calling here. In post after post, you've asked what
value Van Gogh has to the world, identifying yourself as one who is disdainful
of artistic values.
To those that aren't guided by the material worth of certain things such as
art, what Van Gogh adds to the world is self-evident, deeply felt, and doesn't
need explaining to a - here's that word again - Philistine.
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
DgSWEET
singer and an innovator with tofu.
Noel Katz
>
>Eagle
But you've already been proven wrong. You said the NEA doesn't fund plays
critical of its existance and Linda Eisenstein told you she wrote one, funded,
in part by the NEA. You said they don't fund plays expressing unpopular
viewpoints and Jeffrey Sweet tells you he's written some. These two are
working playwrights, produced on a regular basis. One of them threw a very
famous name at you: Wendy Wasserstein, and you admitted you hadn't read her
play, An American Daughter. For someone "willing to be convinced if shown
proof" you've certainly seen a lot of it.
Stephen Farrow
Oh yeah. Silly me. What WAS I thinking?! ;-)
Stephen
Jesse Jones
> Question remains--in what demonstrable way is the world better off having had
> Van Gogh?
> I am offended by the continued view that someone is a philistine simply
> because they recognize the truth that the world would be largely unaffected
> by replacing one artist with another---such is the true beauty of art.
Is there no artist in your soul, P-Man? Life would be diminished by the loss
of any artist. The world would be a different place indeed but for Van Gogh, and
the same can be said, to varying degrees, to any artist who has received any
significant notice.
eagl...@my-deja.com
Jesse Jones <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote:
> Pizzaman95 wrote:
>
> > Question remains--in what demonstrable way is the world better off
having had
> > Van Gogh?
>
simply
> > because they recognize the truth that the world would be largely
unaffected
> > by replacing one artist with another---such is the true beauty of
art.
>
by the loss
> of any artist.
>
libertarian view? To some, that would be like saying that life would
be diminished without evil.
Tim Gowen
>ANY artist? Even the ones whose artworks express a conservative or
>libertarian view? To some, that would be like saying that life would
>be diminished without evil.
Well how you can make not spending money on anything other than defence
and law enforcement into a work of art is beyond me, but I'd enjoy
seeing it.
Tim Gowen
>I suppose, then, that it would be futile for me to try to answer your
>last post point by point, or even to ask you questions so that you can
>further clarify your own beliefs.
I'm willing to clarify my own beliefs to any degree you feel necessary,
but you decided not to answer my post in full because I called you on
your xenophobic attitude (rather embarrassing for someone who's
insisting they're not right wing), and because you know I'm right about
Libertarians wanking themselves off and getting nowhere.
You know it. I know it. You'll deny it.
Kelley P Swilley
thread. But there's one argument I find a little unnerving.
"Is the world really better off because of the work of (Insert Artist's
Name Here)?"
This suggests that the only benefits the world can receive -- or at
least, the only ones that matter -- are those that can be quantified.
This carries a whiff of utilitarianism. If our only meaningful benefits
are quantifiable, then fiction has no value at all.
I'm actually less hard-core pro-NEA than I used to be. I'm damned if I
want anyone to lift one weasly finger to take away my PBS, but I've
actually come to recognize that federal funding might not be the best
thing for the arts community. However, the heading reads not "federal
funding" but "public funding." Does this mean not only that the NEA
should not exist, but that state and local organizations that use tax
money to support the arts should not exist either?
I believe that more state and local funding could fill the gap left by
the NEA, should the NEA be removed, because in my view, states and cities
have the advantage of being closer to the public, and therefore would
know how and where best to spend the money, so that it DID quantifiably
benefit the public. The money could be used to lower ticket prices, so
that a night out at the theater would not be as cost-prohibitive as it so
often is. It could be used to increase young people's exposure to live
theater, and also to start theater programs in which the young people
themselves could participate. These programs could put theater directly
in the lives of more citizens. And I, for one, find that a definite
benefit.
However, if states and cities are not willing to do their part, then the
NEA is needed. Perhaps if it spent more of its money to increase the
public's exposure to the arts (and therefore seemed more "tangibly"
beneficial), it might be less controversial.
Jesse Jones
> > Is there no artist in your soul, P-Man? Life would be diminished
> by the loss
> > of any artist.
> >
> ANY artist? Even the ones whose artworks express a conservative or
> libertarian view? To some, that would be like saying that life would
> be diminished without evil.
What artists express conservative or libertarian views?
Pizzaman95
(Kelley P Swilley) writes:
>
>I've read some good arguments both for and against the NEA in this
>thread. But there's one argument I find a little unnerving.
>"Is the world really better off because of the work of (Insert Artist's
>Name Here)?"
>This suggests that the only benefits the world can receive -- or at
>least, the only ones that matter -- are those that can be quantified.
>This carries a whiff of utilitarianism
Not at all but some (many?) think that government should only concern
itself with the utilitarian and leave the rest to the citizenry.
Jesse Jones
> The government of the United States exists to protect individual
> rights, which are done through three branches of the government -- the
> police, the courts and the military. Granted, the Constitution allowed
> for certain inconsistencies (the most terrible being the continuation
> of slavery -- which it inherited from the monarchy of Britain,
> wonderful system that it is) but in principle it's basis is in
> individual rights. Anything the government does that rests on any
> collective ideals is inappropriate and undercuts the strength and
> uniqueness of the U.S. government.
That may have been Jefferson's goal, but it is NOT reflected in the
Constitution. Article I Section 8 gives Congress broad powers, to "provide
for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," to
regulate commerce among the states, etc., etc., etc. Jefferson's agrarian
ideal soon yielded to the industrial age and by the middle of the 19th
Century we had a national economy; with much controversy, which thank God is
now behind us, the federal government established national banks, enacted
homestead laws to give real estate away and to settle the ever-moving
frontiers, and built internal improvements, such as railroad and canals, to
facilitate commerce. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. That
hardly is the only purpose of the federal government, however.
eagl...@my-deja.com
Jesse Jones <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote:
>
> What artists express conservative or libertarian views?
>
names, if indeed the NEA supports such a broad range of views? How
about one?
Is it inconceivable that no artists like that are out there -- that no
true artist would hold such views to begin with, or is it that the ones
who do hold these views are being quietly marginalized and having
roadblocks put in their way (though not censored) by government
institutions like the NEA?
DgSWEET
indeed the NEA supports such a broad range of views? How about one?
As I've said: Charlton Heston. Staunch supporter of the NEA.
>Is it inconceivable that no artists like that are out there -- that no true
artist would hold such views to begin with, or is it that the ones who do hold
these views are being quietly marginalized and having roadblocks put in their
way (though not censored) by government institutions like the NEA?
Artists tend to be iconoclasts, which means they tend not to be conservative
(though Artistophanes was no liberal). Now that the red-baiters have lost most
of their old targets, whom are a lot of them targeting now? Artists. Just as
they saw Reds threatening their world, now they see artists as being these
pesky people who raise disturbing questions, challening received authority. I
mean, you know, these artists types -- they don't hold regular jobs, they shack
up a lot with people they aren't married to, they put stuff on the screen which
gives our young folk bad ideas ... That's why the cops arrested the puppeteers
in Philadelphia, physically brutalizing them and destroying their puppets.
They were going to say rude things about Bush's death penalty position. They
had puppets representing every person executed under his administration in
Texas. And the cops destroyed these and arrested and manhandled the people who
made them. Are we afraid of puppets now? Really?
Have you sent your protest yet?
Eagle, you have no real idea how the NEA is run. You have no idea what
institutions get money or how they distribute it. You have no idea ... You
have no idea, period. You have a fixed misconception, which doesn't quite
count as an idea.
You don't like the NEA, too bad. The parade has passed you by. You gonna
continue to recycle stale popcorn?
Noel Katz
>who do hold these views are being quietly marginalized and having
>roadblocks put in their way (though not censored) by government
>institutions like the NEA?
You vastly overestimate the influence of the NEA. Few theatre fans can list
NEA-recipient playwrights since they are few and sometimes obscure. The
"famous" artists don't get the grants.
You've argued, again and again, that the NEA is a political body that only
supports artists of a particular point of view. IF there are artists out there
holding YOUR point of view, whose careers are stifled by the actions of the
NEA, it's YOUR duty to name them. Why ask us? We don't seem to believe such
people even exist. Prove us wrong, Eagle.
>Why can't the average theatre-savvy person rattle off a couple of
>names, if indeed the NEA supports such a broad range of views?
DgSWEET
>NEA-recipient playwrights since they are few and sometimes obscure. The
>"famous" artists don't get the grants.
>
Well, Noel, actually there aren't very many NEA grants for individual artists
any more. The way the money gets to the playwrights -- grants are given to the
theatres to support their seasons, and this is part of the money that may go to
commissions or royalties or new light bulbs. So, yes, some NEA money probably
goes to playwrights small and great. But most of the funded programs, yes,
usually are about developing new work or supporting the encouragement of new
audiences for work (outreach programs, etc.).
But I think it's borderline hopeless to get Eagle to acknowledge his ignorance
of this stuff. He seems to have willed himself into a state of naivete that is
so pure in its obliviousness that it's almost a shame to disrupt it. There are
so few things that are pure any more, so pure foolishness is to be sheltered,
guarded, protected.
eagl...@my-deja.com
dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET) wrote:
> >Why can't the average theatre-savvy person rattle off a couple of
names, if
>
> As I've said: Charlton Heston. Staunch supporter of the NEA.
>
someone name artists who express conservative or libertarian views -- I
should have asked what known PLAYWRIGHTS express those views in their
WORKS. Where are those views being heard (in a sympathetic way) in
works funded by the NEA?
Since you brought up Heston as an example of an artist who expresses
conservative views (being a supporter of the NEA, he's definitely not a
libertarian), I'd like to point you to an article about Heston and the
demonization of conservatives, written by conservative and former
radical leftist David Horowitz, which puts the spotlight on what is, in
my own experience, a very typical attitude among liberals:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/issue/dh_politicalwar_excerpt2.htm
> >Is it inconceivable that no artists like that are out there -- that
no true
> artist would hold such views to begin with, or is it that the ones
who do hold
> these views are being quietly marginalized and having roadblocks put
in their
> way (though not censored) by government institutions like the NEA?
>
> Artists tend to be iconoclasts, which means they tend not to be
conservative
> (though Artistophanes was no liberal). Now that the red-baiters have
lost most
> of their old targets, whom are a lot of them targeting now?
Artists. Just as
> they saw Reds threatening their world, now they see artists as being
these
> pesky people who raise disturbing questions, challening received
authority.
Artists have always been suspect. You will admit, won't you, that even
though McCarthy went way overboard in his quest to uncover Communists
in the 50s, there was legitimate justification for the concern over
Communist infiltration, which has been confirmed by the recent
declassification of Soviet documents?
> I mean, you know, these artists types -- they don't hold regular
jobs, they shack
> up a lot with people they aren't married to, they put stuff on the
screen which
> gives our young folk bad ideas ...
I hope Gore and Lieberman get in, because when Lieberman moves to
institute government censorship in the media, leftists won't be able to
claim that it's all the Republicans' fault (though they'll likely claim
instead that Lieberman is "acting like a Republican").
> That's why the cops arrested the puppeteers
> in Philadelphia, physically brutalizing them and destroying their
puppets.
> They were going to say rude things about Bush's death penalty
position. They
> had puppets representing every person executed under his
administration in
> Texas. And the cops destroyed these and arrested and manhandled the
people who
> made them. Are we afraid of puppets now? Really?
>
> Have you sent your protest yet?
>
If indeed they were totally innocent and just wanted to "say rude
things," merely exercising their right to free speech, I grant you that
it was definitely an injustice to rough them up and destroy their
personal property, and reparations should be made. But according to
Jesse Walker in an article about the Phili police actions during the
Convention on the "Salon" website:
"The local authorities deny all those reports [of police brutality and
unjustified arrest], and most of the allegations not been confirmed --
though some non-protesters caught in the dragnet have reported
mistreatment as well, strongly suggesting that more than politically
motivated exaggeration is at play. Human-rights groups are probing the
prisoners' charges to sort the real crimes from the rumors."
So if non-protestors were also arrested, wouldn't you agree that this
lends credence to the theory that what happened to this puppet theatre
was not an act of censorship, but of very unfortunate and wrong-headed
tactics by the police in an attempt to maintain order?
Had the puppet theatre incident happened out of the blue on an ordinary
day when there was no Convention or other protests going on, then you
would have a stronger basis on which to claim that it was an act of
political censorship. But that's just not the case. Of course,
allegations of police misconduct should be investigated, and guilty
parties punished, and I just hope that these human-rights groups
mentioned in the article are objective and fair. Do you know which
human-rights groups are doing the probing and what the status of their
probes are now?
I believe you've stated that the action you'd like me and others to
take in regard to this incident is to write a letter of protest to the
Phili Police Department. But if the Phili police are so corrupt as to
indiscriminately pick out a poor puppet theatre and destroy their
property for no other reason than to try and censor them, then I don't
see how they would possibly give a rat's ass about any letters of
protest written to them. Who specifically gave the order to brutalize
them and destroy their puppets? Has this kind of thing also happened
to them or other groups when protests WEREN'T going on, which would
show a deliberate pattern of censorship and brutality against those who
would exercise their right to free speech, or was it just an isolated
incident?
> Eagle, you have no real idea how the NEA is run. You have no idea
what
> institutions get money or how they distribute it. You have no
idea ... You
> have no idea, period. You have a fixed misconception, which doesn't
quite
> count as an idea.
>
Do I have direct experience with how the NEA is run? No. But the
results are obvious (despite, possibly, an occasional exception which
proves the rule). Have you read "The National Endowments," which is a
collection of papers presented at a symposium held at New York
University on November 17, 1993? In its Preface, David Horowitz
describes it as "the first and only time conservative artists,
intellectuals, and scholars with personal experience working with the
endowments were able to discuss their ideas in a formal public
setting." In the book, in his paper titled "Funding the Left,"
Horowitz describes his own experience sitting on an NEH panel, and how
even with conservatives on the panels, leftist propaganda disguised as
art gets pushed through without ever being questioned, despite explicit
guidelines that any work which has a particular political point of view
is immediately ineligible. Do you claim that he and others are making
their stories up or are distorting the truth? Maybe you know something
I don't. Please enlighten me.
> You don't like the NEA, too bad. The parade has passed you by. You
gonna
> continue to recycle stale popcorn?
>
"You don't like the NEA, too bad." That's right. Too bad. Tough on
me. Might makes right, and the "parade" has passed me by. You're
going to force me through taxes to support the NEA anyway, whether I
like it or not. Ha ha. Tough on me and others like me, because you've
got the bigger gang on your side to force me and others like me with a
minority viewpoint to conform to your wishes...Now there's a shining
example of compassionate, fair-minded, liberal inclusiveness for you!
Karen Horn
: DgSWEET wrote:
:>
:> Re, Stephen: >Here's a wild idea. Why not get hold of a copy and actually read
:> it, so
:> that you can contruct an *informed* opinion?
:>
:> A shocking idea. If such a concept took hold, you'd have lots of people
:> arguing about things they actually KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT. This could spell the
:> death of newsgroups as we know them.
:
: Oh yeah. Silly me. What WAS I thinking?! ;-)
:
: Stephen
But neither of you guys is exactly being fair to the poster. He doesn't
know AMERICAN DAUGHTER---but you might try out the titles of OTHER plays
which he may know about to illustrate your point. As it is, I'm not
terribly impressed with the argument about how wonderful it is that
these NEA plays criticize the government. [which they can do on their
own nickle] ---- what you are really "hiding" is the fact that you will
NEVER see an NEA funded play which questions the rampant pro-abortion
stance of the media- or for that matter would be remotely friendly to
expressing the opinion that perhaps the once noble goal of affirmative
action has now degenerated into a quota system. In short, these NEA
plays will NEVER been ones espousing a conservative point of view.
You guys are right when you say politics will often creep into plays---
as it obviously would given you have people with opinions. Just don't
kid yourself that the NEA is a font of freedom.
Karen
Karen Horn
:> I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if shown some proof.
you're being rather unfair here----the poster was willing to admit he was
wrong, if he saw proof of it---but his point was that by Linda's own
DESCRIPTIONS of the play on her website [which he quoted from] --NOTHING
in it indicated a slap at the NEA---it seems the focus was elsewhere.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
:You don't believe this to be appropriate. Well, too bad. Your views have been
: taken into account but they didn't weigh sufficiently heavy in the balance to
: offset the vast majority who do want federal funding of the arts.
: Now, what are you going to do about it? Keep posting here? Try to win
: converts here? I would wish you luck, but it would be hypocritical.
Right. That's just what liberals do when they lose a battle---walk away,
never to fight it again. [sheesh---do you guys listen to yourselves? --
some fights NEVER end]
: I wish you would take the energy you are putting into this and apply it to
: something good. For instance, the Philadelphia police, because they didn't
: like the Redmoon puppet theatre's intent to stage an anti-Bush puppet show
: during the Republican convention, imprisoned the troupe for eleven days and
: destroyed their puppets. (By the way, they have an NEA grant, so it's one
: governmental institution -- the Philly police -- oppressing a group supported
:by another government institution.) This is a gross encroachment on individual
: freedom and the right to express dissent. I invite you to protest to the
: Philadelphia police citing their brutality, the violation of human rights, and
: the destruction of property. Just your kind of cause, yes?
:
I'm sure eagle will---RIGHT after you bitch at Janet Reno for sticking
a gun in Elian Gonzales's face.
Karen
Karen Horn
: In article <8po42o$mrp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eagl...@my-deja.com writes
:
:>The government of the United States exists to protect individual
:>rights, which are done through three branches of the government -- the
:>police, the courts and the military. Granted, the Constitution allowed
:>for certain inconsistencies (the most terrible being the continuation
:>of slavery -- which it inherited from the monarchy of Britain,
:>wonderful system that it is)
: Well why did you take so long to abolish it if it was so patently not
: the done thing? Why did one of your hallowed political parties support
: it (the Democratic Party) if it wasn't the American way? I know all
:-D Didn't you see 1776 or listen to it?
:>Do you routinely ascribe evil motives to anyone who doesn't
:>agree with you?
:
: Funding only defence and law enforcement is evil, and I ascribe evil
: motives to those who advocate it. So, the answer to your question is
: no. Do I find your political views evil? Absolutely.
Jeez Tim, you really feel for Blair in his hour of need, don't you?
I'm sure your lunch invitation to 10 Downing will be in the mail any
day now. Tony needs friends. Just don't bring a camera, he'll think
you brought it to take pictures of his kid to exploit him.
Karen
Karen Horn
: In article <8pp1cs$scd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eagl...@my-deja.com writes
:>I suppose, then, that it would be futile for me to try to answer your
:>last post point by point, or even to ask you questions so that you can
:>further clarify your own beliefs.
:
: I'm willing to clarify my own beliefs to any degree you feel necessary,
: but you decided not to answer my post in full because I called you on
: your xenophobic attitude (rather embarrassing for someone who's
: insisting they're not right wing), and because you know I'm right about
: Libertarians wanking themselves off and getting nowhere.
:
: You know it. I know it. You'll deny it.
Geez Tim, are you out of petrol and cooped up? You sound more pissed off
than a cornered chipmunk. Not like you. Walk down to the pub and have
some scotch or something.
I think your're WAY overboard in calling eagle a xenophobe, and if you'd
calm down, I think you'd have to laugh at yourself.
Karen
eagl...@my-deja.com
Jesse Jones <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote:
> eagl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The government of the United States exists to protect individual
> > rights, which are done through three branches of the government --
the
> > police, the courts and the military. Granted, the Constitution
allowed
> > for certain inconsistencies (the most terrible being the
continuation
> > of slavery -- which it inherited from the monarchy of Britain,
> > individual rights. Anything the government does that rests on any
> > collective ideals is inappropriate and undercuts the strength and
> > uniqueness of the U.S. government.
>
> That may have been Jefferson's goal, but it is NOT reflected in
the
> Constitution.
Well, slavery was allowed to exist under the original Constitution,
women were not permitted the right to vote, no mention of the rights of
atheists, certainly no mention of an NEA, and even the famous
phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the
Constitution. Are we to ignore the principles of the Constitution and
only focus on concretes?
Article I Section 8 gives Congress broad powers, to "provide
> for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," to
> regulate commerce among the states, etc., etc., etc.
The framers of the Constitution were not Gods, and not above having
their opinions influenced by the circumstances of their times. With
20/20 hindsight, we can see that the Constitution contains certain
inconsistencies (regulating commerce among the states is an
inconsistency just as much as denying blacks and women their full
rights) and vague references to things like the "general welfare" which
are too easily open to interpretation.
> Jefferson's agrarian
> ideal soon yielded to the industrial age and by the middle of the 19th
> Century we had a national economy; with much controversy, which thank
God is
> now behind us, the federal government established national banks,
enacted
> homestead laws to give real estate away and to settle the ever-moving
> frontiers, and built internal improvements, such as railroad and
canals, to
> facilitate commerce.
And when inequalities, inefficiencies and disasters arose because of
government involvement in projects such as railroads and canals, who
took the blame -- the government? No - private enterprise. I quote
from Ayn Rand in "Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal":
"The degree of government help received by any one railroad, stood in
direct proportion to that railroad's troubles and failures. The
railroads with the worst histories of scandal, double-dealing, and
bankruptcy were the ones that had received the greatest amount of help
from the government. The railroads that did best and never went
through bankruptcy were the ones that had neither received nor asked
for government help. There may be exceptions to this rule, but in all
my reading on railroads I have not found one yet.
"...It is generally believed that in the period when railroads first
began to be built in this country, there was a great deal of
useless 'over-building,' a great many lines which were started or
abandoned after being proved worthless and ruining those involved. The
statists often use this period as an example of 'the unplanned chaos'
of free enterprise. The truth is that most (and perhaps all) of the
useless railroads were built, not by men who intended to build a
railroad for profit, but by speculators with political pull, who
started these ventures for the sole purpose of obtaining money from the
government.
"...The railroads were violently opposed by the owners of canals and
steamship companies, who were doing most of the transportation at the
time. A great number of laws, regulations, and restrictions were
passed by various legislatures, at the instigation of the canal
interests, in an attempt to hamper and stop the development of the
railroads. This was done in the name of the 'public welfare' (!)
"...It is not a matter of accidental personalities, of 'dishonest
businessmen' or 'dishonest legislators.' The dishonesty is inherent in
and created by the system. So long as a government holds the power of
economic control, it will necessarily create a special 'elite,'
an 'aristocracy of pull,' it will attract the corrupt type of
politician into the legislature, it will work to the advantage of the
dishonest businessman, and will penalize and, eventually, destroy the
honest and the able."
Noel Katz
> what you are really "hiding" is the fact that you will
>NEVER see an NEA funded play which questions the rampant pro-abortion
>stance of the media-
I don't watch a lot of TV or see many movies, so I'm not aware of the rampant
pro-abortion stance you refer to. But, at the Atlantic Theatre a year or two
back, I saw a play that described the abortion procedure in gruesome detail. I
don't know if they get any NEA money, though.
>or for that matter would be remotely friendly to
>expressing the opinion that perhaps the once noble goal of affirmative
>action has now degenerated into a quota system.
Could somebody look up the play, "Open Admissions" to discover whether it was
developed by a Federally supported theatre?
>In short, these NEA
>plays will NEVER been ones espousing a conservative point of view.
Hmmm, the best new American play I've ever seen depicted Roy Cohn, gave him
frighteningly accurate political speeches, and no character challenged him
about these views. Now that one I know had some NEA funding.
>don't
>kid yourself that the NEA is a font of freedom
Who here said that?
Pizzaman95
> That may have been Jefferson's goal, but it is NOT reflected in the
>Constitution. Article I Section 8 gives Congress broad powers, to "provide
>for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," to
>regulate commerce among the states, etc., etc., etc. Jefferson's agrarian
Don't forget Jesse, any powers not enumerated are reserved to the states!
ab...@earthlink.net
her...@aol.com (Herone) wrote:
> >Anyway, the
> >NEA will never fund works critical of the existence of governmental
> >programs like the NEA, not so long as NEA panels are made up of
> >fallible human beings who tend to act in their own self-interest
> >(however much they may claim that they have "higher" goals).
>
> Again, I don't think you know diddly about how "governmental" panels
re: the
> arts are set up. I got a grant from the Ohio Arts Council for a
musical that
> in part explicitly critiqued/made fun of the NEA artist grants, and
artists who
> got them! (My musical STAR WARES: THE NEXT GENERATION. Details on my
web
> page.)
>
> Linda Eisenstein her...@en.com http://www.en.com/users/herone
It may be true that Eagle may be naive in terms of the truth about how a
governmental panel distributes grants to arts councils nationwide, but
the argument has great merit. There is still a layer of beaurocracy
within the walls of the NEA, including its govermental panels. As I said
before, the NEA is drenched in beaurocracy. The NEA is still classified
as a special interest group/lobbyist in Congress. To think otherwise is
to ignore the truth altogether.
--
Todd Andrew Barnett
Todd's World
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/TdAndrBrnt/index.html
The Libertarian Way
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/TdAndrBrnt/libertarian.html
Noel Katz
"You will admit, won't you, that even though McCarthy went way overboard in his
quest to uncover Communists in the 50s, there was legitimate justification for
the concern over Communist infiltration, which has been confirmed by the recent
declassification of Soviet documents?"
This is the basest canard of them all. I've sat through a lot of dull movies
in a nearly exhaustive search and am here to tell you:
There never was a Hollywood film or TV show that the Soviets influenced or
contained a scintilla of communist message.
That's why the history books refer to it as a "witch hunt" - turns out there's
no such thing as witches.
Eagle continues (and concludes, hopefully):
"`You don't like the NEA, too bad.' That's right. Too bad. Tough on me.
Might makes right, and the "parade" has passed me by. You're going to force me
through taxes to support the NEA anyway, whether I like it or not. Ha ha.
Tough on me and others like me, because you've got the bigger gang on your side
to force me and others like me with a minority viewpoint to conform to your
wishes...Now there's a shining example of compassionate, fair-minded, liberal
inclusiveness for you!"
It's a shining example of a little thing we have here called democracy. The
majority has voted for a long string of presidents and congresses that approved
funding the NEA, and sure, ha-ha on you for being in the minority. Roughly TEN
CENTS of the average taxpayers federal tax bill goes to arts funding. If your
tax bill is 100 times the average American's then a bigger ha-ha on you: the
majority stole a sawbuck
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
DgSWEET
>know AMERICAN DAUGHTER---but you might try out the titles of OTHER plays
>which he may know about to illustrate your point.
If the poster doesn't know AMERICAN DAUGHTER -- a Broadway play by a Pulitzer
Prize-winning playwright that was also made into a TV movie -- then I despair
over finding a play he's more likely to know.
>what you are really "hiding" is the fact that you will
>NEVER see an NEA funded play which questions the rampant pro-abortion
>stance of the media
Bull. The NEA doesn't check the theatres for the ideology behind the plays
they (the theatres) produce. They fund theatres, not individual plays.
>- or for that matter would be remotely friendly to
>expressing the opinion that perhaps the once noble goal of affirmative
>action has now degenerated into a quota system.
This is a silly statement for the same reason as above. But to counter:
SPINNING INTO BUTTER is about smug liberals confronting their own racism. A
play that excited a lot of controversy -- particularly because of a specch some
p.c. people found too strong. Premiered by a play receiving NEA funds.
> In short, these NEA
>plays will NEVER been ones espousing a conservative point of view.
Sigh. Again: the NEA doesn't review or approve or endorse or fund individual
plays. Repeat: the NEA doesn't review or approve or endorse or fund individual
plays. Your whole thesis is based on an invalid assumption.
I'm gonna try not to write replies. Honest --
DgSWEET
>back, I saw a play that described the abortion procedure in gruesome detail.
>I
>don't know if they get any NEA money, though.
They do.
>Could somebody look up the play, "Open Admissions" to discover whether it was
>developed by a Federally supported theatre?
Ensemble Studio Theatre. Yes, receives NEA and other non-profit money.
DgSWEET
>I should have asked what known PLAYWRIGHTS express those views in their WORKS.
Don't blame me if playwrights in general aren't conservatives. You want some
conservative playwrights, go develop them yourself.
>You will admit, won't you, that even
>though McCarthy went way overboard in his quest to uncover Communists
>in the 50s, there was legitimate justification for the concern over
>Communist infiltration, which has been confirmed by the recent
>declassification of Soviet documents?
Yup. There were real, actual commies out there, some of them intending the US
no good. And, to the extent that they were engaged in illegal activities, fair
game for investigation and prosecution.
But, if you look at the HUAC hearings, they spent a HUGE amount of their time
going after movie stars to humble. As if Zero Mostel and Edward G. Robinson
had anything meaningful to say about nuclear espionage! Nonsense. HUAC didn't
put their attention very much on where history now suggests there were indeed
problems; they mostly chased after celebrities. Mundt told Marilyn Monroe that
he wouldn't go after her then-husband Arthur Miller if she would pose in a
picture with him. There's real integrity, yes? She told him to shove it, and
they held Miller in contempt of congress and lifted his passport. The same man
they later gave a Kennedy Center medal to. Pure hypocrisy.
>I hope Gore and Lieberman get in, because when Lieberman moves to
>institute government censorship in the media, leftists won't be able to
>claim that it's all the Republicans' fault (though they'll likely claim
>instead that Lieberman is "acting like a Republican").
Look at Leiberman's voting record in the Senate -- he hasn't voted with the
know-nothing who tried to impose litmus tests on grants ONCE. Not once.
Though I'm not happy with some of his campagin language, his record on arts
issues is about the best in the Senate.
>So if non-protestors were also arrested, wouldn't you agree that this
>lends credence to the theory that what happened to this puppet theatre
>was not an act of censorship, but of very unfortunate and wrong-headed
>tactics by the police in an attempt to maintain order?
No, because they weren't arrested in the street. They were arrested in a
building where they were making the puppets. The cops broke into the building,
destroyed the puppets and dragged the puppeteers out of the building. The
puppeteers were then put onto a bus without air conditioning for ten hours. It
just sat there baking for ten hours. If you want more details, the CHICAGO SUN
TIMES ran a substantial piece last week.
> Do you know which
>human-rights groups are doing the probing and what the status of their
>probes are now?
Two of the puppeteers are from the critically-acclaimed Redmoon Theastre (that
just got a rave for their HUNCHBACK in today's NY TIMES, by the way). They are
a much-loved, much-admired troupe from Chicago, and I have a hunch that the
citizens there will support them in a suit against the Philadelphia police
department.
>But if the Phili police are so corrupt as to
>indiscriminately pick out a poor puppet theatre and destroy their
>property for no other reason than to try and censor them, then I don't
>see how they would possibly give a rat's ass about any letters of
>protest written to them.
You know, if the mayor and company get enough letters from people who say they
are appalled by this kind of behavior and they are going to corss Philly off
the list of places to visit, maybe they'll wake up a little.
>Who specifically gave the order to brutalize
>them and destroy their puppets?
The SUN-TIMES got their hands on some of the paperwork of the cops. There is
no specific person named. But the paperwork has references to the puppeteers
as being suspected of being Communists. Jesus Christ, hasn't anybody been
paying attention to history?
By the way, the NEA is different from the NEH.
>You're
>going to force me through taxes to support the NEA anyway, whether I
>like it or not. Ha ha.
Lots of government money is spent on stuff I don't support, including, I'm
sure, things that make your life easier. I don't have a kid in a public school
now, but I don't resent paying my fair share to put other people's kids through
public schools. I think it's part of the larger social good.
>Tough on me and others like me, because you've
>got the bigger gang on your side to force me and others like me with a
>minority viewpoint to conform to your wishes.
I'm saying the process -- flawed as it is -- does indeed take into account a
variety of viewpoints before policy is made. Your viewpoint has gone into the
mix, it just hasn't prevailed. That's what sometimes happens in a democracy, a
minority sometimes sees its interests overwhelmed by what the majority thinks
is the larger good. On the whole, it's generally preferable to a minority
ordering the majority around. (Not always, but on the whole.)
DgSWEET
>a gun in Elian Gonzales's face.
I didn't see a gun in Janet Reno's hand.
I did see a kid being held hostage by his nutcase relatives over the objections
of his father and in defiance of due process.
The image was unpleasant, but a single image rarely tells the complete truth.
DgSWEET
>as a special interest group/lobbyist in Congress.
No. The NEA can't be a lobbyist. Lobbyists can't be in the government. The
NEA is part of the government.
Karen Horn
: Karen Horn:
:> what you are really "hiding" is the fact that you will
:>NEVER see an NEA funded play which questions the rampant pro-abortion
: I don't watch a lot of TV or see many movies, so I'm not aware of the rampant
:back, I saw a play that described the abortion procedure in gruesome detail. I
: don't know if they get any NEA money, though.
Well, it would be interesting to know if they DID, and it would also
be interesting to know what "message" they had as the "final word" [if
any] on abortion in general. Was abortion an important theme of the
play, or was it one character's viewpoint? Was that character treated
sympathetically, or portrayed as an asshole?
:>or for that matter would be remotely friendly to
:>expressing the opinion that perhaps the once noble goal of affirmative
:>action has now degenerated into a quota system.
:
: Could somebody look up the play, "Open Admissions" to discover whether it was
: developed by a Federally supported theatre?
:
:>In short, these NEA
:>plays will NEVER been ones espousing a conservative point of view.
:
: Hmmm, the best new American play I've ever seen depicted Roy Cohn, gave him
: frighteningly accurate political speeches, and no character challenged him
: about these views. Now that one I know had some NEA funding.
But what was the MESSAGE, Noel? Not "did one character espouse X viewpoint"
but did X's viewpoint PREVAIL---and how did the audience feel about
X's character? When you say no character "challenged him" about the views,
do you mean to his face only? Or is it clear from body language and
action with other characters that the Cohn character was sympathetic.
Cohn is a BAD example, in many senses anyway, as it is an example of an
over the top witch hunter. you'll remember that in the 50s Bobby Kennedy
worked as a member of McCarthy's committee. [something the Kennedy's would
like everyone to forget] ---
Karen
Karen Horn
:>I'm sure eagle will---RIGHT after you bitch at Janet Reno for sticking
:
Yeah, especially when you find out that the commandos sent in roughed
up the pool TV cameraman [there's a lawsuit pending] and saw the series
of photos which prove that at some point the gun pointed at Elian. Reno,
after hysterically claiming there were guns in the crowd was willing to
take a chance of putting Elian at risk of gunfire----all as a payoff to
Fidel, of course.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: No, because they weren't arrested in the street. They were arrested in a
:building where they were making the puppets. The cops broke into the building,
: destroyed the puppets and dragged the puppeteers out of the building. The
:puppeteers were then put onto a bus without air conditioning for ten hours. It
:just sat there baking for ten hours. If you want more details, the CHICAGO SUN
: TIMES ran a substantial piece last week.
BTW, it might help just a weensie bit if you ALSO mention the fact that
a lot of the puppeteers were pulling the "I refuse to give you my name"
stunt, which of course makes it harder to get bail on. I'm not saying
what the police did was by any means right---but it seems to me their problems
were vastly compounded by not doing that much at least.
[Somewhere on line, not too long ago, [alt.acting?] someone areessted in
this fiasco gave a detailed account---and mentioned the "no we're not
giving you are names" deal and I was amazed at that. Sheesh---did they
want to get the hell out of jail or not?
BTW, you would do well to remember Philly didn't want another Chicago '68
on its hands, OR stupid riots which mirrored the Seattle riots of late
and unhappy memory. Big crackdowns on allowing people to move freely
about in Hell-A too.
Karen
Tim Gowen
<kah...@king.cts.com> writes
>Geez Tim, are you out of petrol and cooped up? You sound more pissed off
>than a cornered chipmunk. Not like you. Walk down to the pub and have
>some scotch or something.
Karen, I love you dearly but you ARE capable of being strident when your
country or political beliefs are criticised. I'm doing the same thing.
>I think your're WAY overboard in calling eagle a xenophobe, and if you'd
>calm down, I think you'd have to laugh at yourself.
Well he's still going on about George III as if that wasn't all a long
time ago. He judges America by his failure to understand the Bill of
Rights, and judges Britain by failure to comprehend a Greetings Card
view of this country. Criticism of Britain for matters of history as an
argument against the sort of society we have here really gets under my
skin. If he's not a xenophobe, he's incredibly stupid.
Tim
--
+ "I didn't get the money and I didn't get the girl. Pretty, isn't it?"
+ The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/
Noel Katz
>Was abortion an important theme of the
>play, or was it one character's viewpoint? Was that character treated
>sympathetically, or portrayed as an asshole?
THE central theme, and what causes the very moving rift between him and the
other major character. Treated extremely sympathetically: you had to love the
guy, or the play wouldn't work.
>When you say no character "challenged him" about the views,
>do you mean to his face only?
Sorry if I was unclear: No character challenged his views anywhere in the play.
We're talking, by the way, about the best new American play I've ever seen and
the best piece of theatre I've seen in the past two years. Both supported by
the NEA.
DgSWEET
No playwright worth his salt that I know sits down and writes to convey a
didactic message like: "abortion is good/bad" or "Roy Cohn was good/bad". You
don't start with theme. At least most of the people I know don't.
Starting with theme results in tedious, lecturing, propaganda plays which try
to tell the audience how to think. Plays mostly present challenges not
statements. They question assumptions, not parade conclusions. Oh, you can
pull out a few pieces with agit prop purposes, but not many good ones, and not
very many in recent years.
You start with character or a situation that interests you and start writing.
The theme emerges as you write. You discover what you think as you write. And
then you try not to say it.
The theatre -- at its best -- is an IMPLICIT not an explicit form. It is not
the place for delivering essays, that's what the newspapers' op-ed pages are
for.
By the way, anybody who knows any history knows that Bobby was involved with
the McCarthy crap, and also that he and Roy Cohn hated each other's guts. Just
because some of us would have liked to have voted for the man Bobby Kennedy was
becoming doesn't mean we are blind to some of the disagreeable things he had
done. The guy was not a saint or even particularly nice.
DgSWEET
>Fidel, of course
Oh, please ... Whenever you come close to saying something interesting or
coherent, you undermine your credibility by pulling out something like this ...
DgSWEET
http://www.suntimes.com/output/theater/red12.html
The arrests were illegal. Refusing to cooperate with an illegal procedure is a
form of protest. Perhaps not one I would choose ...
DgSWEET
Breaking into buildings and dragging people out without cause?
The daughter of my girlfriend was in D.C. coincidentally at the time the recent
protests were being held. As she was coming out of visiting the Holocaust
mueum -- not part of a protest, not taking part of any action -- she and her
friends were arrested and tossed into jail because the police were doing a
pre-emptive sweep of protestors. This is patently illegal, of course, and she
and a number of the people who shared info in the jail are getting together in
a class-action suit.
This seems to be a bit of an epidemic, doesn't it?
Feuillade
> HUAC didn't put their attention
> very much on where history
> now suggests there were indeed
> problems; they mostly chased
> after celebrities. Mundt told
> Marilyn Monroe that he wouldn't
> go after her then-husband Arthur
> Miller if she would pose in a
> picture with him. There's real
> integrity, yes? She told him to
> shove it, and they held Miller in
> contempt of congress and lifted
> his passport. The same man
> they later gave a Kennedy Center
> medal to. Pure hypocrisy.
Logic compels one to point out that the "they" in both instances were very
different people -- so accusing one group of hypocrisy for doing something
contrary to the viewpoint of a totally different group of people is a little
silly.
Tom Moran
"He's probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major
party... What is his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
-- Ron Reagan Jr. on George W. Bush
DgSWEET
>different people -- so accusing one group of hypocrisy for doing something
>contrary to the viewpoint of a totally different group of people is a little
>silly.
I was messy in my construction. The hypocrisy I was referring to was Mundt's.
Jesse Jones
> In article <39C18300...@davisjones.com>,
> Jesse Jones <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote:
> >
> > What artists express conservative or libertarian views?
> >
> Why can't the average theatre-savvy person rattle off a couple of
> names, if indeed the NEA supports such a broad range of views? How
> about one?
>
> Is it inconceivable that no artists like that are out there -- that no
> true artist would hold such views to begin with, or is it that the ones
> who do hold these views are being quietly marginalized and having
> roadblocks put in their way (though not censored) by government
> institutions like the NEA?
The reality IMO plainly is that *no* "true artist" could hold to the
radically conservative political views you have expressed here. That is
why I asked if you could name any. I gather you cannot.
Karen Horn
: Karen --
:
: No playwright worth his salt that I know sits down and writes to convey a
: didactic message like: "abortion is good/bad" or "Roy Cohn was good/bad". You
: don't start with theme. At least most of the people I know don't.
:
: Starting with theme results in tedious, lecturing, propaganda plays which try
: to tell the audience how to think. Plays mostly present challenges not
: statements. They question assumptions, not parade conclusions. Oh, you can
: pull out a few pieces with agit prop purposes, but not many good ones, and not
: very many in recent years.
:
: You start with character or a situation that interests you and start writing.
:The theme emerges as you write. You discover what you think as you write. And
: then you try not to say it.
I can appreciate what you say above, and I agree the best theatre doesn't
hit you over the head with a message---but would you deny that many
plays lead the horse right up to the water [so to speak] and then hope
he will drink?
Karen
Karen Horn
:>Big crackdowns on allowing people to move freely about in Hell-A too.
:
: Breaking into buildings and dragging people out without cause?
:
: protests were being held. As she was coming out of visiting the Holocaust
: mueum -- not part of a protest, not taking part of any action -- she and her
: friends were arrested and tossed into jail because the police were doing a
: pre-emptive sweep of protestors. This is patently illegal, of course, and she
: and a number of the people who shared info in the jail are getting together in
: a class-action suit.
:
: This seems to be a bit of an epidemic, doesn't it?
:
Well, it's stupid.....you can't arrest [well you CAN, but it opens
governments up to lawsuits BIGTIME, which i hate paying off for
due to police stupidity] people because you THINK they might do something
illegal. My guess on the police paranoia lately has been in response
to the way-over the top civil disruption which happened in Seattle.
Karen
Karen Horn
Oh, Jeez, Jesse. Now you're just being silly again. So NO artist could
be infavor of the 2nd amendment. Right. Sieg Heil, Jesse.
Karen
DgSWEET
>hit you over the head with a message---but would you deny that many
>plays lead the horse right up to the water [so to speak] and then hope
>he will drink?
Not very many of the ones that last, except as curiosity pieces.
Nobody can really figure out, for instance, what Shakespeare's political
beliefs are. Like the Bible, he can be quoted to support almost any
perspective. (We do kind of assume that he thought Elizabeth was OK, since she
liked his stuff.)
DgSWEET
>to the way-over the top civil disruption which happened in Seattle.
Probably a good analysis, but if they really want to see protests -- ones I'll
join -- they'll keep pushing people around when they're exercising their civil
liberties.
Euclid Peltier
Asian coutries
subsidize the arts in some way. The majority
of their people do not object to this, in fact
all my French friends approve highly of it,
in spite of their hight taxes. Paris has just
about completed a ten year renovation of
all their theaters( When they closed their
old Opera House for renovating they
built a new one. Now they have two. Practi-
cally every town in France, Italy and
Germany have an Opera house and local
performers. My French friends love
Americans (not what is usually said) but
they laugh at us. Although highly taxed
they find that visiting here we are almost
as hightly taxed, as although our income
tax is lower than theirs, we tax just about
everything else, food,clothes, etc . etc.
and in the long run they are almost as
hight as theirs/ Everyone get at least
a four week vacation, they don't need to
use thier cars, as transportation is so
good, most museums are free, etc.etc.
I could go on, but my point is, I am
definitely strong for govt suopported
education,, partcularly the arts in
schools, ( most of which have been
curtailed). So, would you have vetoed
the GI Bill of WW II. If we had I wouldn't
be writing this today. Probably would
have never got to College. nor would
have half of current lawyers, Congress=
man, professional, today. So we cut
out Govt. progams. In France anyone
qualified for College attends Free. It
may be getting through to some states
now, i.e. California. Let's slow down
on trips to Mars, and distribute the
money to education. Perhaps in that
way today's youth might attend the
theater, read more, hear good music, etc.
Sorry about all thls, but just got back
from a month in Europe and things
look different from over there. Not
that everything they do is better than
our approaches, but I think both sides,
we and they should share the best of
both worlds. - Sorry, too much salid.
Ed-Boston
Tim Gowen
<kah...@king.cts.com> writes
>Oh, Jeez, Jesse. Now you're just being silly again. So NO artist could
>be infavor of the 2nd amendment. Right. Sieg Heil, Jesse.
Well I think the issue is that our bird of prey friend couldn't name
one.
If he could name one, I'm sure he would. It's very nice that you're
encouraging us all to cut him some slack just because of what I've been
saying all week, but it's a terrible double-standard.
He could say that the "art scene" is so mired in liberalism and bull
that no genuine conservative artist can make it. That would be a
reasonable argument - although I'd like to spell it out that it's not
one I'd agree with.
eagl...@my-deja.com
dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET) wrote:
> >I'm not familiar with AN AMERICAN DAUGHTER. In what way is it
critical
> >of government? Is it critical of government because it doesn't
believe
> >the government should be involved in something to begin with, or that
> >the government isn't doing ENOUGH? Of course there are plenty of
works
> >like that, but that's not what I meant by works being critical of
> >government. I meant the former.
> >
> >Eagle
>
> It is critical of cynicism and cowardice in the government.
>
So another way of saying that is that it IS about how government isn't
idealistic and brave ENOUGH.
> You know, there are ways of being critical that don't conform with
your narrow
> perspective.
>
Narrow perspective? "Check your premises." - Ayn Rand
> But there's little point of entering into a debate with you. You'll
just hit
> me with the usual slogans, and that offers too little nutrition ...
>
There would be little point of entering into a debate with me if I had
labeled your views as evil, and assumed an evil motivation for holding
them, as Mr. Gowan did to me, but I have expressed no such thing toward
yo or anyone else. I think your conclusions about the NEA are wrong,
but I think they're wrong because of "confirmation error" ("a man hears
what he wants to hear and disregards the rest," as Paul Simon would
sing), which we all have to guard against, including me. It's helpful
to hear what a dissenting voice has to say. Sometimes you can learn
from it.
I'm entering into this debate open to the possiblity that you or
someone else will change or modify my own point of view (which will
only happen if you or someone else also holds out this same possibility
for yourselves). So where do you stand? Or is your mind made up and
shut tight like Mr. Gowan's?
I do not know "An American Daughter," and didn't recognize the title at
first, but in looking it up I now realize that this was the Wendy
Wasserstein play that I never got to see, but which I had wanted to
because I'd heard that it dealt with political issues (which I'd like
to see more of, regardless of whether I agree with the point of view or
not), and because I've been a fan of Lynne Thigpen ever since I saw her
in "Working." I will, however, get a copy of the play now and see for
myself. I understand it was also done for t.v., and I'll see if I can
check that out as well if it's on video.
Eagle
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Karen Horn
:>Big crackdowns on allowing people to move freely about in Hell-A too.
:
:
: protests were being held. As she was coming out of visiting the Holocaust
: mueum -- not part of a protest, not taking part of any action -- she and her
: friends were arrested and tossed into jail because the police were doing a
: pre-emptive sweep of protestors. This is patently illegal, of course, and she
: and a number of the people who shared info in the jail are getting together in
: a class-action suit.
BTW, is it really any surprise this happens in DC re: pre-emptive clearing
of the streets? For years Bill & Hillary have had casual HECKLERS arrested,
and later sicced the IRS on them. So this is nothing new.
Karen
DgSWEET
>>
>So another way of saying that is that it IS about how government isn't
>idealistic and brave ENOUGH.
Well, that's always true. But that's true about every institution I can think
of.
>Narrow perspective? "Check your premises." - Ayn Rand
>
Well, we have different tastes in philosophers. I don't think much of what I
know of Rand. I see a lot of her followers using her stuff a justification for
selfishness.
>("a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest," as Paul Simon
would
sing),
Simon would also say, "Support the N.E.A." But I have a hunch you'd disregard
that.
>So where do you stand? Or is your mind made up and shut tight like Mr.
Gowan's?
I have been studying and following these issues as a playwright, a journalist
and a bystander for a number of years. I know a lot of the folks involved. I
know how the process works. I have been on panels for arts councils (though
not the N.E.A.). I would be lying if I didn't say that after thirty years of
observation and participation I hadn't drawn a few conclusions I think have
some basis in reality.
I make no particular claims for AN AMERICAN DAUGHTER, which I didn't like as
much as some of Wasserstein's other plays. It takes off from what she saw as
being Clinton's removing his support from someone he'd nominated for a post.
By implication, it expresses disappoinment with Clinton and the whole process
by which good people are discouraged from entering government. I have some
sympathy with the themes, I just don't think the execution is as sharp as it
could be.
Karen Horn
: performers. My French friends love
: they laugh at us. Although highly taxed
And we laugh at them. They think of Jerry Lewis as a comedic icon.
NExt time Germany takes over their country, I suggest we let the
Germans KEEP it.
: out Govt. progams. In France anyone
: qualified for College attends Free. It
There's no free lunch. Any where, any time, for anybody, by anybody.
It's all paid for, one way or another.
Karen
DgSWEET
Cliche.
>There's no free lunch.
Another cliche.
Onward to higher ground.
Noel Katz
>For years Bill & Hillary have had casual HECKLERS arrested,
>and later sicced the IRS on them.
Do you have any evidence to offer for this astounding assertion?
Tim Gowen
>I'm entering into this debate open to the possiblity that you or
>someone else will change or modify my own point of view (which will
>only happen if you or someone else also holds out this same possibility
>for yourselves). So where do you stand? Or is your mind made up and
>shut tight like Mr. Gowan's?
I'm perfectly willing to hear you defend spending only on defence and
law enforcement. I'm perfectly willing to hear you defend not putting
any money into education. Perfectly. You were fine, although I didn't
agree with you, until you started wrapping yourself in Old Glory and
taking a shot at the British just because that's where I'm from. That
got me angry, I admit, but not angry enough to lock you away or kill you
for your beliefs, as you rather pathetically suggested.
I still think your chosen regime would let right-wing extremists hold
sway, but I didn't say you were one of the extremists. We disagree
about whether you are in fact right wing.
And Gowen is spelt with an 'e'.
ab...@earthlink.net
Stephen Farrow <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> DgSWEET wrote:
> >
> > Re, Stephen: >Here's a wild idea. Why not get hold of a copy and
actually read
> > it, so
> > that you can contruct an *informed* opinion?
> >
> > A shocking idea. If such a concept took hold, you'd have lots of
people
> > arguing about things they actually KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT. This could
spell the
> > death of newsgroups as we know them.
>
> Oh yeah. Silly me. What WAS I thinking?! ;-)
>
> Stephen
Oh yes. The wonderful world of Stephen Farrows, a schmuck whose sole
interest is to smear the reputation and beliefs of those who don't
support government-subsidized arts funding. I suppose if he were to
run for President or Vice President of the United States, he could do
it as a Democrat...or as a Green...nope, as a Socialist.
That would work.
And this is an argument coming from a man who thinks he knows a damn
thing about libertarianism, authoritarianism, or any recognized
political philosophy.
Excuse me, as I must head to the bathroom and regurgitate.
--
Todd Andrew Barnett
Todd's World
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/TdAndrBrnt/index.html
The Libertarian Way
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/TdAndrBrnt/libertarian.html
Tim Gowen
>Oh yes. The wonderful world of Stephen Farrows, a schmuck whose sole
>interest is to smear the reputation and beliefs of those who don't
>support government-subsidized arts funding. I suppose if he were to
>run for President or Vice President of the United States, he could do
>it as a Democrat...or as a Green...nope, as a Socialist.
Don't worry, Todd, he's British so that's not possible. For a lot of
people, the word 'socialist' is not a trigger word because subsidised
arts is not a socialist doctrine.
Are you still into wicca?