Please Read: NEA/NEH/PBS Funding -- Important
Kevin Sawad Brooks
Any of you who receive federal arts and humanities funding should be aware of
the latest considerations by Congress to cause harm. According to NEA staff,
not only future funding and even the existence of NEA (and other agencies) are
threatened -- past alottments may be rescinded. Your budget plans now may
need to include re-payment or non-acceptance of money promised to you.
I do not know the details about this. I have requested that NEA send me the
available information as well as instructions as to the preferred response.
Apparently, the basic issue is one of communicating to "our" representatives
the enormous benefits all of us have received from NEA, CPB, NEH, etc. to
counterattack the overwhelming negative reports from others.
Please call NEA or the federal agency most helpful to you (NSF, NEH, or
whichever) to get the specifics and the fax numbers. If you would like e-mail
addresses as well of the House of Representatives (those that have such
already), please write to me at the following:
hen...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Jane Henrici)
--
Take an object Take a canvas
Do something to it Put a mark on it
Do something else to it Put another mark on it
" " " " " " " " " "
--Jasper Johns
David Lincecum
Sawad >Brooks) wrote about the threat of losing Nea funds, some that are
already >promised:
I tried to keep a discussion about this subject going on the mailing list
some months ago. All I heard were complaints about how it was a political
issue and not to be discussed on Stagecraft. Well it's coming around full
circle folks and we all are going to be the ones who are affected. Read
the Post by Kevin Brooks and take an interest. Chances are you will find
yourself affected. Especially if you work with small organizations who
depend on a certain amount of federal funding.
--David Lincecum
NS Brown
: I tried to keep a discussion about this subject going on the mailing list
: some months ago. All I heard were complaints about how it was a political
: issue and not to be discussed on Stagecraft. Well it's coming around full
: circle folks and we all are going to be the ones who are affected. Read
: the Post by Kevin Brooks and take an interest. Chances are you will find
: yourself affected. Especially if you work with small organizations who
: depend on a certain amount of federal funding.
If your organization(s) can't survive without public funds ...
... maybe they don't deserve to survive at all.
Hollywood movies don't depend on public funds; movie producers
flourish or perish on their ability to market their product to
an audience. Popular music doesn't depend on public funds;
the groups (and producers) flourish or perish on their ability
to market their product to an audience.
So what makes your organization(s) special, that you shouldn't
have to earn your own way? By what right are those organizations
entitled to survival, even if they can't support themselves?
And before you suggest "preserving the arts for the masses,"
I'm an artist and I've seen a lot of what the NEA funds. Most
of the time, it costs the average "mass" about $45 to get in
and see an exhibit, show or concert, which kinds limits those
"masses" to the wealthier patrons. It's not as if we're funding
street-corner artists; we're underwriting entertainment for the
wealthy (who could damn well afford to pay for it themselves).
So please, don't come bellyaching about how "the arts will
be demolished" by the death of the NEA. The stuff that's
marketable will survive. As for the rest ... well, that's
where the phrase "starving artist" comes from.
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
Ned Bobkoff
Chris: Not everything that is "popular" is commercial. The purpose of
the NEA is to encourage growth in the arts in the same way that funds are
allocated to educational institutions to develop computer science,
literacy, medicine and disease control (funding doesn't, of course,
include ignorance, a form of disease which apparently runs rampant; but on
second thought, maybe the ignorant are being funded in ways they know
nothing about - another reason why ignorance is so popular; and government
funding also includes price supports for wealthy agribusinesses at the
expense of small farmers, some of these agribusinesses in Kansas strong
supporters of Senator Robert Dole. Funds for the NEA might very well be
shifted into a renewel of the "Star Wars" program, a program that will
cost billions when there is not an "enemy" big enough to confront us now -
except maybe ourselves. Just imagine all the money that will be made
building new weapons systems, money raised through taxes and passed on to
strictly commerical interests. In the 80's more money was spent on
military bands than the entire budget of the NEA. Today the NEA budget is
less than 1/10 of 1% of the National Budget. Guess what it costs us to pay
off the expenses of the SAving and Loan scandal? A scandal that you and
other youthful defenders of the faith will be paying for well into the
next century. Guess and then compare that to the budget of the NEA. If you
had any inkling of some of the projects and artists funded over the years
you will find the majority of them contributing to their communities in
ways that are special and life enhancing. I suggest you do a little
research before you sound off. It appears that you are out to get artists
rather than using the time to examine the positive effects of much of NEA
funding in communities throughout the U.S. Would you also like to cut the
budget of National Public Radio? This fine government funded agency has
helped communities throughout the U.S. recognize and express their
cultural heritage, delivered the news in depth and in ways far more
penetrating than "commercial" TV and radio, and allowed us to share our
cultural heritage, yes even differences in a healthy and consistently
informative manner. How "popular" does one have to be before you become
acceptable? And is popularity always the test of quality? Throwing
Christians to the lions was, at one time, very popular and lucrative to
those who sold tickets to these events. Thank you and good night. Ned
Stuart Sechrest
I think that it is time for those interested in the arts and who want
public funding of the arts to rethink their arguments.
For one thing, nobody made any money throwing Christians to lions.
Prisoners were purchased from the jails by wealthy individuals, who
provided entertainments for the masses as a way of buying social peace.
Unfortunately, in times of social stress this caused the price of prisoners
to be jacked up unconscionably, so a law was passed putting a cap on the
price that could be charged for prisoners. (See Robin Lane Fox's book
Pagans and Christians.)
This aside, support for NPR, or medical, educational, and defence spending
does not translate into support for arts spending. Nor is there a logical
imperative that leads people who might think that farm price subsidies
are a huge waste of money to think that consistency requires them to
support gov't funding of the arts. The idea that money from the NEA
will go to support a revival of Star Wars is dubious, since any large
scale revival of Star Wars is extremely unlikely, it is not where the
military wants spending to go.
If you want to build support for the NEA, make a case for the NEA.
I see no particular reason to have grants go to individual artists.
This was a Republican idea from 1970. The original NEA gave grants only
to institutions and organizations. I believe the NEA has a role to
play, in particular, in allowing exhibitions and companies to tour.
I think that there is potential agreement for the sort of funding that
allows dance companies to visit, say, Louisville, Kentucky, or that
pays for the insurance and shipping for art shipped to Boise, Idaho.
It is possible that there would be support for money that encourages
local stage productions of serious plays. People who believe this
need to confront the criticism that this money is often earmarked for
plays following a political agenda. Only plays dealing with minority
issues, AIDS, and other contentious issues need apply. (Criticism of
the political uses of corporate matching funding has appeared on the
op-ed pages of the New York Times. The idea that political plays
tend to drive out nonpolitical plays due to subsidies has appeared on
NPR. It is not just Jesse Helmes who has problems with current funding
priorities.)
Maybe there is some support for grants to individual artists, but
this case has to be made. Under the current system, the biggest grants
go to the artists who are already most successful. Why should a
Robert Maplethorpe get a $15,000 dollar grant, after he starts making
huge amounts of mony ( nb, the grant that caused the trouble was a
perfectly legitimate grant that funded a touring exhibit). No one
has a right to the public's money. There has to be a public purpose
served. I think that grants are given to individual artists because
it is more fun for bureaucrats to decide this than to decide which
museum's plumbing is in the worst shape, or other nuts and bolts
issues.
So make your case, but don't start by saying that if the NEA is a
waste of taxpayer money, it deserves support because it is only a
small waste.
--Stuart Sechrest
XMK...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
distributed. I feel that such things as the controversial Mapplethorpe
exhibit is something that is so far out there that it is something that
I don't want my Arts money spent on. However, i strongly feel that the
$$ provided by the NEA should be directed towarsds the community in terms
of Arts education. How many kids are there out there who would love to
take music, voic, dance, art, drama, writing lessons, but there is no way
to fund these? Perhaps if we introduce the Arts to children, as they grea
into adults, they would be more amenable to funding and supporting them.
Thje reason why many artists in the past were supported NOT by governement,
but by patrons is because as children they were introduced to culture
and encouraged to participate. Now, we teach calculus, sciences, maths,
and basiscs of grammar. Where is the heart? That is what the NEA should
cover, it should supplement arts education for the young. Let the adult
artist then, like the rest of us, survive in a market industry. Face it,
in today's society, which is money tight, the only way to survive is to
create an audice for tomorrow. We do that by intorducing children tody.
And, personally, I don't think I want my 13 year old son beinga part of
Mapplethorpe. I do, however, encourage him to be involved in as many
youth culture things as I can find.
K-O
Jeffrey Salzberg
: If your organization(s) can't survive without public funds ...
: ... maybe they don't deserve to survive at all.
Well, so much for the postal service and the department of defense. . . .
: Hollywood movies don't depend on public funds; movie producers
: flourish or perish on their ability to market their product to
: an audience.
...and most Hollywood movies are pablum.
Popular music doesn't depend on public funds;
: the groups (and producers) flourish or perish on their ability
: to market their product to an audience.
See "Hollywood movies", above.
NS Brown
[I wrote:]
: : If your organization(s) can't survive without public funds ...
: : ... maybe they don't deserve to survive at all.
[Jeffrey replies:]
: Well, so much for the postal service and the department of defense. . . .
A couple of significant differences:
* The Postal Service is self-supporting, through the fees it
charges for its services.
* Congress has a constitutional *mandate* to "provide for the
common Defense." _U.S. Const._, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1. There
is no analogous constitutional mandate to provide for the arts.
The closest you can come to a constitutional mandate with respect
to the arts lies in the First Amendment's Free Expression Clauses
(esp: Free Speech; Free Press). The limit of this mandate is
a proscription of laws which *infringe* free expression. A
mandate not to *infringe* does not equate to a mandate to *provide.*
Your argument fails on constitutional grounds.
[Jeffrey argues that the self-supporting arts I cited --
Hollywood movies and popular music -- produce "pablum."]
This is essentially a qualitative argument -- that the
NEA, NEH and PBS fund "good art." I agree that they
often do, and that a lot of the art funded through these
sources is better than the market-oriented art.
But this begs entirely the question of whether John and
Jane Taxpayer should be *required* to ante up and support
these artists. Absent a constitutional mandate, I don't
think so. If John and Jane Taxpayer *really* care about
good art, they'll fund it voluntarily. If not, they don't
deserve it. And if Arie Artist *really* cares about making
a living from his/her art, he/she can produce art that will
sell. If not, he/she should find another job and produce
art in his/her spare time.
We don't *owe* Arie Artist a living. And there's no
constitutional mandate to provide art for John and Jane
Taxpayer.
But more's the point ...
... accepting government money *ought* to necessarily imply
accepting government oversight. That is, Arie Artist shouldn't
say "give me your money" AND "but don't tell me how to spend it."
So, the Jesse Helms' of the world (rightly) want to oversee the
art that's funded with public money ... and I don't want Jesse
Helms working as an art critic. (He's bad enough working as a
legislator.)
Easy solution? Let the arts support themselves. Thus, not
beholden for government funds, they can eschew public oversight
without being hypocrits.
Gene Haldeman
NS Brown <nsb...@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>
>
>So please, don't come bellyaching about how "the arts will
>be demolished" by the death of the NEA. The stuff that's
>marketable will survive.
Ah, good. Nothing better than reruns of "Three's Company".
--
hald...@sas.upenn.edu |"And these things don't dress too well
|No discrimination.
|To be a zombie all the time
ge...@admissions.ugao.upenn.edu|Requires such dedication!" --Eno
NathanThomas
Brown) writes:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [I wrote:]
> : : If your organization(s) can't survive without public funds ...
> : : ... maybe they don't deserve to survive at all.
>
> [Jeffrey replies:]
> : Well, so much for the postal service and the department of defense. .
.
>
> accepting government oversight. That is, Arie Artist shouldn't
> say "give me your money" AND "but don't tell me how to spend it."
> So, the Jesse Helms' of the world (rightly) want to oversee the
> art that's funded with public money ... and I don't want Jesse
> Helms working as an art critic. (He's bad enough working as a
> legislator.)
>
> Easy solution? Let the arts support themselves. Thus, not
> beholden for government funds, they can eschew public oversight
> without being hypocrits.
>
> Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
>
> Cris
Howdy,
Here we are again. Yes, there are people who object that public money is
used to fund what they individually do *not* support. Why should I be
*required* to give money to those art people? Well then, why should I be
required to give money to the military/industrial complex? Blah, blah,
blah.
Occasionally it's useful to look outside one's own self-interest at the
larger community. There's not a constitutional mandate for many things
that we as a society regard as a good -- some of which have utility, some
of which have little immediate utility.
Why must everything have some immediate utility? There was no immediate
utility in going to the moon. But it was a good thing for a people to do.
(Please don't bring up the tired arguments about JFK's cold-war cycnicism
of using the moon shot as a chip against the Soviets, and don't bring up
the co-incidental technologies that resulted. My point is that Neil et al
have had the pleasure of stepping on the lunar surface. My life as an
individual hasn't been personally greatly improved because of this. But
it was a *good* for society.)
Millions of people have lived without knowing about sub-atomic particles.
Even knowing about quarks doesn't materially help my life one little bit.
The planet fly-bys and landings of our satellites provides mild
entertainment from pictures. We as a society fund such research because
it is *good* for a society to do. And in this instance, I believe it's
rare that knowing about another distant galaxy will even provide
technology that will give us a better toaster or dishwasher. These
activities are supported because they are good. It is a good for a
society to explore.
Likewise it is a good for a society to use public monies for the arts.
Besides, as you should know, much of the NEA funds go toward helping arts
organizations with outreach and educational programs. Cutting NEA funds
(or wiping out the NEA) would probably not affect the champagne debut
night party. (Lubricating the donars will continue -- so these events,
being cost effective, will continue.) However, loss of NEA funds will
lead to the diminishment and loss of less cost-effective programs, like
taking the orchestra to that little town a long drive from the city, or
helping sponsor the performance of young playwrights' work at the Kennedy
Center. They're just kids, after all. Who cares?
(Also, because of these outreach programs, as often as not, the NEA money
finds its way into the pockets of bus drivers, McDonalds workers, etc.
Never forget the 'multiplier effect' of these dollars.)
Finally, polls continually show that a majority of the American people
favor public funding of the arts. However, the arts make a convenient
punching bag. Our society is too darn utilitarian. ("I'll never use
algebra/physics/thesis writing/Shakespeare in life, why should I learn
it?")
Nathan
nat...@adv.cal.msu.edu
(With apologies to our international members who may be bored by our
politics.)
jle...@utdallas.edu
[discussing Republican plan to slash (abolish?) funding for NEA/NEH/PBS]
>
> If your organization(s) can't survive without public funds ...
> ... maybe they don't deserve to survive at all.
> Hollywood movies don't depend on public funds; movie producers
> flourish or perish on their ability to market their product to
> an audience. Popular music doesn't depend on public funds;
> the groups (and producers) flourish or perish on their ability
> to market their product to an audience.
> So what makes your organization(s) special, that you shouldn't
> have to earn your own way? By what right are those organizations
> entitled to survival, even if they can't support themselves?
> And before you suggest "preserving the arts for the masses,"
> I'm an artist and I've seen a lot of what the NEA funds.
Cris, I don't think that's the most important point. It seems the
problem "conservative Republicans" have with the NEA is not that
they are against funding art, only against the kind of art they don't
like. Frankly, I suspect we will see the practical abolishment of the
NEA in years to come. What is even more troubling is their hacking at
the NEH and PBS. Moreover, I think this is nothing more than a hint of
things to come. (There's been a dark and threathening cloud hovering over
the humanities ever since Reagan began his campaign to "return to days of
'Father Knows Best'.")
--
============================================================================
James L Elson: |<o When you stare into the abyss too long o>|
School of Arts & Humanities |<o the abyss stares back into you. o>|
University of Texas-Dallas | --Nietzsche-- |
jle...@utdallas.edu
> [I wrote:]
> : : If your organization(s) can't survive without public funds ...
> : : ... maybe they don't deserve to survive at all.
> [Jeffrey argues that the self-supporting arts I cited --
> Hollywood movies and popular music -- produce "pablum."]
> This is essentially a qualitative argument -- that the
> NEA, NEH and PBS fund "good art." I agree that they
> often do, and that a lot of the art funded through these
> sources is better than the market-oriented art.
> But this begs entirely the question of whether John and
> Jane Taxpayer should be *required* to ante up and support
> these artists. Absent a constitutional mandate, I don't
> think so. If John and Jane Taxpayer *really* care about
> good art, they'll fund it voluntarily.
I don't see this as a question of supporting artists. It's a
question of the role of art in the development of culture. I
suspect part, if not the main, problem is that art is always
experimenting with 'new' ways of seeing and relating. These
are often threathening to ossified/brittle forms of life.
On a political note, manuevers such as the intended funding slash
are political prestidigitation. The amount of money involved is
inconsequently to the overall budget/deficit problem. Dealing with
that problem head-on is something that no one except stateswo/men
have the courage and foresight to undertake. They are either an
endangered/extinct species of political animal or they have forsaken
public life out of disgust. Either way, it does not bode well.
NS Brown
[Regarding NEA/NEH/PBS funding, James Elson wrote:]
: Cris, I don't think that's the most important point. It seems the
: problem "conservative Republicans" have with the NEA is not that
: they are against funding art, only against the kind of art they don't
: like. Frankly, I suspect we will see the practical abolishment of the
: NEA in years to come. What is even more troubling is their hacking at
: the NEH and PBS. Moreover, I think this is nothing more than a hint of
: things to come. (There's been a dark and threathening cloud hovering over
: the humanities ever since Reagan began his campaign to "return to days of
: 'Father Knows Best'.")
The Republican Party is currently the mouth organ of the
New Religious Right, which is predominantly Protestant.
With remarkably few exceptions, Protestantism has been
anti-art from day one (and, if you read Kant's _Critique
of Judgment_, you'll get an idea why they feel so threatened
by art). The GOP's reasons for playing slash-and-burn with
the NEA/NEH/PBS are censorial, pure and simple.
Mine aren't.
I'd like it very much if our government got back to spending
money on the things the Constitution *requires*, and leave as
much of the rest of it as possible to the private sector. By
and large, government is not an efficient wealth transfer
system (too much gets syphoned off in the process of governing),
and the net result is that the goods and services provided by
government cost more than they would in the private sector.
So, unless the particular good or service is something the
private sector *can't* provide efficiently (e.g.: defense,
roads, health care(!)), I'd rather see the government keep its
greedy paws out of my wallet.
I also think it's unreasonable for artists to accept government
money without accepting government oversight. Even *defense
contractors* have to submit bids, and produce something the
government wants. That's part of dipping one's nose in the
public trough. And since I loathe the very thought of the
Newt-wits having censorial power over art ("put a little more
red over there on that number one, okay Rufus?"), I'd rather
sweep it out of their domain entirely.
NS Brown
[Regarding the GOP plan to cut the NEA, NEH and PBS, Nathan
Thomas writes:]
: Here we are again. Yes, there are people who object that public money is
: used to fund what they individually do *not* support. Why should I be
: *required* to give money to those art people? Well then, why should I be
: required to give money to the military/industrial complex? Blah, blah,
: blah.
Again, "provid[ing] for the common Defense" is a constitutional
*mandate*. If you don't want the government to do that, work to
amend the Constitution.
: Occasionally it's useful to look outside one's own self-interest at the
: larger community. There's not a constitutional mandate for many things
: that we as a society regard as a good -- some of which have utility, some
: of which have little immediate utility.
Charity is reaching into my own pocket as I look outside my
own self-interest. If our legislators are all that worried
about supporting the arts, let them do their charity with
*their own* funds.
[Remaining argument on utilitarianism elided, as it's totally
irrelevant to my point.]
Please see my prior posts on the inefficiency of government
as a provider of goods and services.
Ian Stovall
NS Brown <nsb...@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>Cris here. :)
>
SNIP!
>
>I'd like it very much if our government got back to spending
>money on the things the Constitution *requires*, and leave as
>much of the rest of it as possible to the private sector. By
>and large, government is not an efficient wealth transfer
>system (too much gets syphoned off in the process of governing),
>and the net result is that the goods and services provided by
>government cost more than they would in the private sector.
>So, unless the particular good or service is something the
>private sector *can't* provide efficiently (e.g.: defense,
>roads, health care(!)), I'd rather see the government keep its
>greedy paws out of my wallet.
>
>I also think it's unreasonable for artists to accept government
>money without accepting government oversight. Even *defense
>contractors* have to submit bids, and produce something the
>government wants. That's part of dipping one's nose in the
>public trough. And since I loathe the very thought of the
>Newt-wits having censorial power over art ("put a little more
>red over there on that number one, okay Rufus?"), I'd rather
>sweep it out of their domain entirely.
>
I agree that Federal arts funding need to be revamped. I'd like to see the
money go to State / Local Arts councils for disbursement to needy Artists.
No censorship required at the federal level. Of course, people would want
the Federal money back at the same ratio per state they gave it out at, so
why bother with the federal gov't at all? We should keep arts funding at
the state level. Execpt that in the larger states, people won't want to
have their money spent where they can't enjoy it, so all the money should
stay at the local level. Which would mostly preclude any single major
payout to fund something like a TV documentary. Local funding would
require an addition to property taxes, which around here would result in
the lynching of whatever politician suggested it.
--
isto...@panix.com is - Ian Stovall - Levittown, L.I. New York
"The overture is about to start, you cross your fingers and hold your heart,
Its curtain time and away we go, its just another op'nin of another show!"
"Kiss me Kate" Act I scene 1
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
> To be perfectly honest, I do object to the way some of the NEA momney is
> distributed. I feel that such things as the controversial Mapplethorpe
> exhibit is something that is so far out there that it is something that
> I don't want my Arts money spent on.
Well, I may not want *my* money going to fund some musty old Shakespeare
production. What's your point? In a democracy, not everyone is happy all
the time. But you can't eliminate only funding for stuff *you* don't
like--you have to make general parameters about supporting the arts, and
expect that you'll like some and dislike some.
However, i strongly feel that the
> $$ provided by the NEA should be directed towarsds the community in terms
> of Arts education. How many kids are there out there who would love to
> take music, voic, dance, art, drama, writing lessons, but there is no way
> to fund these? Perhaps if we introduce the Arts to children, as they grea
> into adults, they would be more amenable to funding and supporting them.
> Thje reason why many artists in the past were supported NOT by governement,
> but by patrons is because as children they were introduced to culture
> and encouraged to participate. Now, we teach calculus, sciences, maths,
> and basiscs of grammar. Where is the heart? That is what the NEA should
> cover, it should supplement arts education for the young. Let the adult
> artist then, like the rest of us, survive in a market industry.
I love this. First, train the kids to enjoy artistic expression; then,
once you've got them interested, make sure they can't earn a living at it.
Listen, I agree that children should get arts education, but it is not a
substitute for serious patronage of the adult artist. Do you have any idea
what it costs to produce a play in today's market? Consider this: while
mass production has cut down the number of people it takes to make most
products, it takes the same number of actors to put on "Hamlet" today as it
did 400 years ago. It is an expensive, labor-intensive art. Unlike a
film, which can appear in hundreds of theatres across the US several times
a night, theatre takes place in *one* place *once* a day (usually). The
ability to generate income is severely limited. So what has to happen to
make a profit? You're seeing it on Broadway right now: higher and higher
ticket prices. And with each rise in prices, the number of people who can
attend gets smaller. Someone in another post noted the high price of most
NEA-funded events: maybe so, but imagine what they would cost *without* the
funding. Listen, I'm not in love with NEA funding: I'm not sure it has
been good for the art form. But I find this populist,
I-don't-like-Mapplethorpe-so-there-shouldn't-be-funding attitude places
much more faith in the quality of the marketplace than I can stomach. De
Tocqueville wondered about art in a mass democracy--whether it would become
debased--and I'm afraid it is becoming so. Do we really want the theatre
to be controlled by the same mindset that gave us "The Terminator" and
"Friday the 13th"? Will that really be best for our society?
Face it,
> in today's society, which is money tight, the only way to survive is to
> create an audice for tomorrow. We do that by intorducing children tody.
> And, personally, I don't think I want my 13 year old son beinga part of
> Mapplethorpe. I do, however, encourage him to be involved in as many
> youth culture things as I can find.
They're connected. Art has always caused controversy. You can't shelter
you son from the world, as much as we'd like. And cutting the NEA wouldn't
stop Mapplethorpe--he was making big buckos without NEA funding. In fact,
the funding was for touring the work, not creating it.
scott walters
NathanThomas
Brown) writes:
> Cris here. :)
> anti-art from day one (and, if you read Kant's _Critique
> of Judgment_, you'll get an idea why they feel so threatened
> by art).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's why Luther loved music so
much? ;-)
Nathan
nat...@adv.cal.msu.edu
NathanThomas
Brown) writes:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [Regarding the GOP plan to cut the NEA, NEH and PBS, Nathan
> Thomas writes:]
> : Here we are again. Yes, there are people who object that public money
is
> : used to fund what they individually do *not* support. Why should I be
> : *required* to give money to those art people? Well then, why should I
be
> : required to give money to the military/industrial complex? Blah,
blah,
> : blah.
>
> Again, "provid[ing] for the common Defense" is a constitutional
> *mandate*. If you don't want the government to do that, work to
> amend the Constitution.
Howdy,
The point I endeavored to make is this: This argument regularly devolves
into several categories. I don't like my money going into (fill in the
blank). The (fill in the blank) isn't really useful. Etc.
Now we see a new argument from a strict interpreter. Either it's mandated
by the Constitution, or it's gone. There are many replies to be made to
this sort of argument.
Would you have *every* public expense specifically mandated or cut?
There's no mandate to send people to the moon. We ought not to have done
that? There's no Constitutional mandate to provide for a public
retirement fund. Do you plan to cut Social Security tomorrow? There's no
Constitutional madate to prevent children from working. Should we rescind
child labor laws soon?
Another reply is to look at the madate itself. Surely the Constitution
includes provisions for the common defense. Considering many of the views
of the Founding Fathers *against* having a standing army, should we
disband the armed forces? We're not at war.
Of course, all this is silly talk. Madison, et al realized that a society
would do what it wanted to do. Their task was to generate institutions
that would not be overly oppressive.
>
> : Occasionally it's useful to look outside one's own self-interest at
the
> : larger community. There's not a constitutional mandate for many
things
> : that we as a society regard as a good -- some of which have utility,
some
> : of which have little immediate utility.
>
> Charity is reaching into my own pocket as I look outside my
> own self-interest. If our legislators are all that worried
> about supporting the arts, let them do their charity with
> *their own* funds.
>
> [Remaining argument on utilitarianism elided, as it's totally
> irrelevant to my point.]
But not to mine. This is not a question of charity anymore than public
funds toward education, scientific research, and/or libraries are charity.
Statistically, the majority of Americans support public funding of the
Arts. The Republicans use the NEA, NEH, CPB, etc. because they are easy
targets. If they meant what they say about public funding, they would
honestly consider Social Security reform and more importantly insurance
reform. That's where money goes. Real money.
Finally. Again the point should be made that the death of the NEA would
not put an end to big-time opening night parties. But it would heavily
curtail the less cost effective outreach programs by arts organizations
that bring the arts to towns and people that don't have access to the
arts.
>
> Please see my prior posts on the inefficiency of government
> as a provider of goods and services.
Art and science are largely inefficient activities in the first place.
Think of the long years Tycho Brahee watched the stars and Glaileo watched
little balls go down inclines and Beethoven walking the woods. So what's
your point?
I don't mean to flame. And I don't mean this personally to any Republican
or Cris in particular, but threatening to cut the arts while letting
really huge amounts of money be wasted in other programs, particularly
relative to health insurance, is akin to threatening to hit a little old
lady. There have been times when I've been ambivalent on this issue. But
very few people are consistent in their approach to the question of public
funds. Occasionally something like the super-collider will be cut from
the budget, but rarely do we hear about cutting the sciences. (Nor do I
suggest that!) Rarely do we hear about *real* cuts or real reform (like
getting gifts from lobbyists). Consequently I've become fervid.
As JFK pointed out in arguing for both the moon shot and the NEA, there
are things we do as a people, not because we *have* to do them, but
because we *ought* to do them.
(I've 'taxed' you enough with my post, I'll leave it there. ;-) )
Nathan
nat...@adv.cal.msu.edu
NS Brown
[I wrote that government sponsorship of art is inefficient (in
that governmental provision of *any* good or service tends to
be inefficient), and that government sponsorship of art
necessarily entitles the government to some control over the
content and quality of that art. Thus, let's get government
*out* of the art business.]
[Ian replies:]
: I agree that Federal arts funding need to be revamped. I'd like to see the
: money go to State / Local Arts councils for disbursement to needy Artists.
: No censorship required at the federal level.
First, are we going to establish state and local councils to
disburse funds to needy pizza deliverypersons? Needy lawyers?
Needy retail clothing merchants? What is so special about art
(as opposed to any other profession) that we should have special
supports for needy artists?
Second, moving censorship from the federal to state and local
levels is no solution. The Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment incorporates the provisions of the First Amendment
as applicable against the states. And since the power of
local government devolves from the states, the First Amendment
rides right on down to your local mayor, school superintendent,
etc. So all we've done is change the defendant in the lawsuit. :)
(Yeah, I'm a lawyer.)
: Of course, people would want
: the Federal money back at the same ratio per state they gave it out at, so
: why bother with the federal gov't at all? We should keep arts funding at
: the state level. Execpt that in the larger states, people won't want to
: have their money spent where they can't enjoy it, so all the money should
: stay at the local level. Which would mostly preclude any single major
: payout to fund something like a TV documentary. Local funding would
: require an addition to property taxes, which around here would result in
: the lynching of whatever politician suggested it.
I'd prefer to see the arts totally privatized. Many large
corporations are currently offering grants to support the
arts, in exchange for "acknowledgements" (read "advertising")
in program notes, header-trailers (e.g.: on PBS) and the
like. Those who are interested in the arts (and I am) can
make a point of patronizing these corporations ... and of
letting people know *why* we're patronizing these corporations.
(Sort of a reverse-boycott -- buy their stuff because they
support things you like.)
The same things happen on the local level; we have a number
of small theatre groups in my area which are funded (in whole
or in part) by grants from local businesses, or which receive
other support (equipment, services) in exchange for acknow-
ledgments. Again, I try to patronize these businesses whenever
I can, to let them know I appreciate the support they give the
arts.
The point is that there *are* alternatives to government
funding. Admittedly, the problem of censorship is still
present (somehow I doubt the Shell Oil Company would give
a million-dollar grant to produce a documentary which showed
Shell in a bad light), but the only iron-clad solution to
this is for artists to be self-supporting (and thus beholden
to no one but their own ideals).
NS Brown
[Regarding the oft-cited "If you want to cut money for the arts,
why not cut out defense spending too" argument, I wrote:]
: > Again, "provid[ing] for the common Defense" is a constitutional
: > *mandate*. If you don't want the government to do that, work to
: > amend the Constitution.
[Nathan responds:]
: The point I endeavored to make is this: This argument regularly devolves
: into several categories. I don't like my money going into (fill in the
: blank). The (fill in the blank) isn't really useful. Etc.
I'm not referring to whether it's "useful." I'm referring to
whether it's *legal*. Every dollar the government spends is
an act of *law*. Our constitutional system defines a Federal
government which consists only of *delegated* powers; it has
no *inherent* power (unlike the states, who have the power
inherent in sovreignty). So any act of the Federal government
is subject to constitutional oversight, and can be held to the
limits of the Constitution's delegated powers.
: Would you have *every* public expense specifically mandated or cut?
: There's no mandate to send people to the moon. We ought not to have done
: that? There's no Constitutional mandate to provide for a public
: retirement fund. Do you plan to cut Social Security tomorrow? There's no
: Constitutional madate to prevent children from working. Should we rescind
: child labor laws soon?
This was already argued, almost two hundred years ago. The
case was _McCollough v. Maryland_, and Chief Justice John
Marshall held that "necessary and proper" (in Art. I, Sec. 8)
really meant "convenient." Without that holding, *most* of
what our federal government currently does would be illegal.
(This is *the* most important case in the history of U.S.
constitutional law.)
I disagree with Marshall. His argument was utilitarian,
based on the notion that if we restricted government spending
to that which is strictly *necessary*, a great many things
simply couldn't be done. At the time, our society was largely
dispersed and agrarian, with very limited means of communication
and cooperation. At the time, Marshall was right.
But things have changed. We now have a society which is capable
of mobilizing resources in the private sector much more effectively
(witness the huge donations of goods, services and money in the
wake of Hurricane Andrew, or the San Francisco earthquake, or
the Mississippi floods). We are more connected, have better
communications, a more efficient banking and money-transfer
system, better transportation ... the list goes on and on.
We *are* capable of doing many of the things which we *couldn't*
do when Marshall decided _McCollough_.
Given that his utilitarian argument falls away, where should
that leave us?
I argue that "necessary" ought to mean that the government is
limited to those activities which the private sector *cannot*
do, either because: (a) the market forces which enable the
private sector do not apply in a given arena (e.g.: health
care); (b) the problem requires a "maintenance budget" which
would not be funded when the need wasn't apparent (e.g.: defense);
(c) the problem requires a solution which should rightfully belong
to everyone (e.g.: roads); or, (d) the problem requires a level
of coordination which the private sector cannot supply (e.g.: the
organizational skills of FEMA).
[I wrote that utilitarian arguments for and against the arts
lay outside the scope of my statements. Nathan replies:]
: But not to mine. This is not a question of charity anymore than public
: funds toward education, scientific research, and/or libraries are charity.
: Statistically, the majority of Americans support public funding of the
: Arts. The Republicans use the NEA, NEH, CPB, etc. because they are easy
: targets. If they meant what they say about public funding, they would
: honestly consider Social Security reform and more importantly insurance
: reform. That's where money goes. Real money.
So until we eliminate the big boondoggles, we ought to ignore
the little boondoggles?
[I wrote:]
: > Please see my prior posts on the inefficiency of government
: > as a provider of goods and services.
[Nathan replies:]
: Art and science are largely inefficient activities in the first place.
: Think of the long years Tycho Brahee watched the stars and Glaileo watched
: little balls go down inclines and Beethoven walking the woods. So what's
: your point?
I wasn't referring to the efficiency (or lack thereof) of art
as an activity. I was referring to the *inefficiency* of
funding art through government. When government is the funding
agency, you have to put a *lot* more dollars in the front end
to get the same amount of money out the back end; the difference
goes into the pockets of beaurocrats.
Why insist on a system which requires more wastage?
: I don't mean to flame. And I don't mean this personally to any Republican
: or Cris in particular, but threatening to cut the arts while letting
: really huge amounts of money be wasted in other programs, particularly
: relative to health insurance, is akin to threatening to hit a little old
: lady. There have been times when I've been ambivalent on this issue. But
: very few people are consistent in their approach to the question of public
: funds. Occasionally something like the super-collider will be cut from
: the budget, but rarely do we hear about cutting the sciences. (Nor do I
: suggest that!) Rarely do we hear about *real* cuts or real reform (like
: getting gifts from lobbyists). Consequently I've become fervid.
Again, let the little boondoggles go because we're not cutting
the *big* boondoggle? If I see someone break into my neighbor's
house and steal a TV, should I *not* report it because I can't
*also* report a murder across town? The murder is, after all,
the more serious crime ... should we let the burglar go until
and unless we catch all the murderers?
: As JFK pointed out in arguing for both the moon shot and the NEA, there
: are things we do as a people, not because we *have* to do them, but
: because we *ought* to do them.
Fine ... provided the act is constitutional. If it's not, then
whether we *ought* to do it is irrelevant. We *can't*. One can
make a strong argument that government *ought* to outlaw racist/
sexist comments, in any forum, anytime, all the time, because
such comments are just plain *wrong*. But such an act runs afoul
of the First Amendment, so whether we *ought* to or not, we *can't*.
Odd, how artists (who are the first to plead "Free Speech" when
Jesse Helms wants to tell them how to make art) are perfectly
willing to ignore *other* clauses in the Constitution if it
suits their purposes.
XMK...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
l;acki (argh!!!) lack of teaching appreciation and understanding of it in
education. Contraryu to popular opinion, most private schools do not focus
on JUST the basics of the three R's. They had and have a strong cultural
and artistic program. It is public ieducation that is lacking. Budget
cuts, more emphasis on nonsensical teasting made by be people who have no
idea what education is about has slowly but surely tightened a noose around
anything that doesn't not produce Scant-tron annswers.
If we were to foucs the money on the kids, they would grow up with a deeper
appreciation and love of the Arts. Most private school kids do this. They
are involved in the musical experiences, the painting and drawing, the
theatre. It is a requirement in some way or another. So, no, I don't think
that audlt artists should be funded. I do feel that we need to focus on
the kids, that way the future artists will have the chance to present not
only to a small select group who consider themselves above the masses. the
artist will not have to depend on govt. funding, because they will bwe
able to generate a living through the growth of a burgeoning audicence.
K-O
murr rhame
<much deletion>
>Finally. Again the point should be made that the death of the NEA would
>not put an end to big-time opening night parties. But it would heavily
>curtail the less cost effective outreach programs by arts organizations
>that bring the arts to towns and people that don't have access to the
>arts.
IMHO, this is the strongest argument in favor of the NEA and related
organizations. How much of the money is spent on outreach? I get the
impression that the lion's share of the money goes to the high profile
groups in big cities with well established arts communities. What
percentage of the money is actually spent on bringing the arts to folks
who would otherwise not have access?
<more deletion>
>As JFK pointed out in arguing for both the moon shot and the NEA, there
>are things we do as a people, not because we *have* to do them, but
>because we *ought* to do them.
There are many things which ought to be done that would not done without
government support. Broad general support for art is not one of these
things. Art predates any recorded government by at least several hundred
millenniums. Governments come and go. We will always have art.
I would like to see more outreach programs. I'm not convinced that this
is where most of the federal money goes. Getting the arts to people who
would not see it otherwise is something the government *ought* to do.
--
mu...@vnet.net /\/\ |_| |~ |~ Charlotte, NC
NathanThomas
Brown) writes:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [Regarding the oft-cited "If you want to cut money for the arts,
> why not cut out defense spending too" argument, I wrote:]
> : > Again, "provid[ing] for the common Defense" is a constitutional
> : > *mandate*. If you don't want the government to do that, work to
> : > amend the Constitution.
Nathan yet again:
I took the opportunity to bring my copy of the Constitution into the
office with me. I hadn't thought to recite the preamble to myself
earlier. However, right after the phrase about "provid[ing] for the
common defense" there is another little phrase about "promote the general
welfare."
>
> [Nathan responds:]
> : The point I endeavored to make is this: This argument regularly
devolves
> : into several categories. I don't like my money going into (fill in
the
> : blank). The (fill in the blank) isn't really useful. Etc.
>
> I'm not referring to whether it's "useful." I'm referring to
> whether it's *legal*. Every dollar the government spends is
> an act of *law*. Our constitutional system defines a Federal
> government which consists only of *delegated* powers; it has
> no *inherent* power (unlike the states, who have the power
> inherent in sovreignty). So any act of the Federal government
> is subject to constitutional oversight, and can be held to the
> limits of the Constitution's delegated powers.
Thank you so much for the civics lesson. :-) Obviously this is so.
However, you state this in such a way that it would appear that this will
lead to an inevitable conclusion. Are we to conclude that you think the
NEA is unconstitutional?
[Lengthy discussion including a few words on McCullough vs. Maryland.]
>
> I argue that "necessary" ought to mean that the government is
> limited to those activities which the private sector *cannot*
> do, either because: (a) the market forces which enable the
> private sector do not apply in a given arena (e.g.: health
> care); (b) the problem requires a "maintenance budget" which
> would not be funded when the need wasn't apparent (e.g.: defense);
> (c) the problem requires a solution which should rightfully belong
> to everyone (e.g.: roads); or, (d) the problem requires a level
> of coordination which the private sector cannot supply (e.g.: the
> organizational skills of FEMA).
A) See Scott Walters' post. (Not to bring you into this discussion,
Scott, but you said it well. :-) ) B) Arguable on both sides.
C) Well, if I remember correctly, that's the point of the NEA, etc.
D) Well, 2 or 3 out of 4 ain't bad. (However, arts management can be
chancy with or without public sector coordination.)
>
> [I wrote that utilitarian arguments for and against the arts
> lay outside the scope of my statements. Nathan replies:]
> : But not to mine. This is not a question of charity anymore than
public
> : funds toward education, scientific research, and/or libraries are
charity.
> : Statistically, the majority of Americans support public funding of the
> : Arts. The Republicans use the NEA, NEH, CPB, etc. because they are
easy
> : targets. If they meant what they say about public funding, they would
> : honestly consider Social Security reform and more importantly
insurance
> : reform. That's where money goes. Real money.
>
> So until we eliminate the big boondoggles, we ought to ignore
> the little boondoggles?
Well, it depends on what you call a boondoggle. One NEA program is the
"Artist-in-Residence." A professional artist provides public school
instruction in his or her art and artistic services to the community as a
whole. Often this is provided to a town or rural area. The town doesn't
have money to do this. The states currently don't have money to do this.
This is a boondoggle? We have different definitions.
>
> [I wrote:]
> : > Please see my prior posts on the inefficiency of government
> : > as a provider of goods and services.
>
> [Nathan replies:]
> : Art and science are largely inefficient activities in the first place.
> : Think of the long years Tycho Brahee watched the stars and Glaileo
watched
> : little balls go down inclines and Beethoven walking the woods. So
what's
> : your point?
>
> I wasn't referring to the efficiency (or lack thereof) of art
> as an activity. I was referring to the *inefficiency* of
> funding art through government. When government is the funding
> agency, you have to put a *lot* more dollars in the front end
> to get the same amount of money out the back end; the difference
> goes into the pockets of beaurocrats.
>
> Why insist on a system which requires more wastage?
Hmmmm. I'd like to see a comparison of beaurocratic waste of the NEA
with, say, United Way or NAACP. It depends on the agency and the people
-- public or private. Honestly, I'm not saying the system is perfect.
But the rumoured intent of the total elimination of the NEA seems to be
comparable to euthanasia for a hang-nail.
>
> : I don't mean to flame. And I don't mean this personally to any
Republican
> : or Cris in particular, but threatening to cut the arts while letting
> : really huge amounts of money be wasted in other programs, particularly
> : relative to health insurance, is akin to threatening to hit a little
old
> : lady. There have been times when I've been ambivalent on this issue.
But
> : very few people are consistent in their approach to the question of
public
> : funds. Occasionally something like the super-collider will be cut
from
> : the budget, but rarely do we hear about cutting the sciences. (Nor do
I
> : suggest that!) Rarely do we hear about *real* cuts or real reform
(like
> : getting gifts from lobbyists). Consequently I've become fervid.
>
> Again, let the little boondoggles go because we're not cutting
> the *big* boondoggle? If I see someone break into my neighbor's
> house and steal a TV, should I *not* report it because I can't
> *also* report a murder across town? The murder is, after all,
> the more serious crime ... should we let the burglar go until
> and unless we catch all the murderers?
Of course not. But I sometimes think a closer analogy is the dogged
enforcement of parking violations while letting drunken drivers careen at
will. Or, to use your terms, we worry about the burglars and let the
murderers go unchecked.
>
> : As JFK pointed out in arguing for both the moon shot and the NEA,
there
> : are things we do as a people, not because we *have* to do them, but
> : because we *ought* to do them.
>
> Fine ... provided the act is constitutional. If it's not, then
> whether we *ought* to do it is irrelevant. We *can't*. One can
> make a strong argument that government *ought* to outlaw racist/
> sexist comments, in any forum, anytime, all the time, because
> such comments are just plain *wrong*. But such an act runs afoul
> of the First Amendment, so whether we *ought* to or not, we *can't*.
Again, no argument here. But the implication here is that this nattering
leads to an inevitable conclusion that somehow NEA funding is
unconstitutional.
>
> Odd, how artists (who are the first to plead "Free Speech" when
> Jesse Helms wants to tell them how to make art) are perfectly
> willing to ignore *other* clauses in the Constitution if it
> suits their purposes.
And here the implication is that there is some clause in the Constitution
that would *forbid* public funding for the arts. I 've just re-read my
copy. I don't find such a clause. Perhaps we will be enlightened by
another civics lesson on how artists ignore the Constitution. Perhaps
these criminals should be locked up. (The tongue in my cheek does not
prevent typing, happily.) Otherwise I agree that, "The most un-American
thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.' "
>
> Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Naturally, I'm gonna start charging money for mine, 8-)
>
> Cris
Nathan
Mark Weinles
Brown) writes:
>Please, don't come bellyaching about how "the arts will
>be demolished" by the death of the NEA. The stuff that's
>marketable will survive. As for the rest ... well, that's
>where the phrase "starving artist" comes from.
This post brought to you by the Capitalists-For-Starvation
Fund. "Making the world a better place...and reducing the
surplus population." (All contributions tax-deductible.)
-- Mark Weinles
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gnicholas1
Court TV and Inside Edition. Art gives us the opportunity to at least try
to reach outside of the mundane and mediocre, - in the making of art and
the experiencing of art. Art tells us ther is something more...
Gordon Fitch
Hush. You're giving the government reasons to suppress art,
not support it.
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
G. Holmquist
do not want to become more of an elitists art, then we all need to work
to increase awareness (of the importance of all people to experience
`live' art) and interest in our art form. At U.I. we are trying to make
a statement that our art is important for people's well being.
Concerning PBS: It seems that the conservative forces want the
programing to go back to the filming of lectures. Well, good stories
must be told in the best techniques of the media.
On another note: Are we loosing our future artists/technicans? How can
improve our's and our student's future?
Scott E. Walters
Brown) wrote:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [I wrote that government sponsorship of art is inefficient (in
> that governmental provision of *any* good or service tends to
> be inefficient), and that government sponsorship of art
> necessarily entitles the government to some control over the
> content and quality of that art. Thus, let's get government
> *out* of the art business.]
>
> [Ian replies:]
> : I agree that Federal arts funding need to be revamped. I'd like to see the
> : money go to State / Local Arts councils for disbursement to needy Artists.
> : No censorship required at the federal level.
>
> First, are we going to establish state and local councils to
> disburse funds to needy pizza deliverypersons? Needy lawyers?
> Needy retail clothing merchants? What is so special about art
> (as opposed to any other profession) that we should have special
> supports for needy artists?
1. Art is a reflection of and a nourishment for the soul of a nation.
2. The cost of producing art in our society has grown to a degree that
requires either excessive admission charges (so only a few can afford to
attend), or excessive popularity (so that it must appeal to a vast portion
of our population).
3. We're not supporting Needy Artists any more than funding libraries
supports Needy Librarians. We're supporting the value of art in and on our
society, and recognizing that its quality will be diminished is forced to
survive in the marketplace.
4. As in days of olde, if the government doesn't fund the arts, quality
art will become a pleasure for the wealthy. Is that democracy? Should
Picasso's "Guernica" only be able to be viewed by the person rich enough to
purchase it?
scott walters
Thyrsus
> Perhaps if we introduce the Arts to children, as they grea
>into adults, they would be more amenable to funding and supporting >them.
have it a chance to experience creating art of their own. Too often
schools and communities feel they are meeting the needs of arts education
by bringing in shows or exhibits for people to look at or listen to. The
power and necessity of art is to be experienced in its creation. Give our
children a taste of being a creator of their own art and they will as an
effortless side effect become consumers of other artists work.
Tom Jaeger
VileSpot
subsidies it is hard to make ends meet. Without these contributions the
theater will have to pander more to the likes and dislikes of the people.
I don't think, however, that this is necessarily a bad thing. It has been
said that theater will become more like a Friday the 13th movie, because
that's what the public wants....
Well isn't that what the theater is supposed to do...entertain? Art
has always been a struggle between making an artistic statement and
pleasing the audience. To illustrate lets take MacBeth and Pulp Fiction.
Shakespeare wrote a masterpiece in MacBeth, but he didn't forget to
entertain. There is the scene with the Gatekeeper, making drunken baudy
jokes. This certainly does not detract from this play. Does the fact that
it entertains make it any less a masterpiece? No! It makes it MORE of one.
Now you say that the audiences of today are less educated, that they are
less likely to enjoy a work that is artisctically sound. Pulp Fiction? It
is not only one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a long time,
it also has a very high degree of artistic craft.
To make a long story short. As long as theater has been around,
its most difficult task has been to package a piece of Art in a form that
the audience can swallow. To take this task away by relying on Federal
Funds and not the audience is to artificially distance yourself from the
heart of theater. If you deny the Marketplace and subsist off of Federal
Funds eventually you'll reach the point where you are so abstracted from
your audience that no one will come to your plays...but it will be OK
because the government supports the Arts.
Don't look at being thrust into the marketplace as a bad thing.
Robert Frost once wrote that poetry without rhyme is like playing tennis
without a net. Such is theater's relationship to its audience. Revel in
it. Accept the challenge. Play to your audience. Don't lean on Federal
funds like a crutch. Its hard to play tennis in crutches!
Matt McLaughlin
Ross D. Willits
Someone mentioned the multiplier effect of federal dollars granted
to the arts. This is one of the most important reasons (besides the
obvious cultural reasons) for federal support of the arts. For every
dollar the federal government gives to the arts, local economies gain
about $20--restaurants, hotels, transit, convention centers....
In Minneapolis, the city is currently struggling to buy the local
NBA basketball arena. In no way could it be said that NBA bascketball
is not a self-supporting endeavor, but the Minneapolis City Council
has recognized that the money that basketball brings into Downtown
Minneapolis is worth shelling out public money for up front. The arts
work the same way. There is great benefit to those attending the
theatre, but even those who do not, benefit from the cultural climate
that arts organizations bring to a city or region.
Minneapolis was a "Cold Omaha" in the early '60's before the Guthrie
Theater arrived on the scene, now, because of NEA funded arts
organizations, Minneapolis is the major cultural center of the
Midwest. That helps the businesses that have been founded in the city,
it draws tourists to the city who bring open wallets. There is no-one
in the city that can claim they have not seen a benefit far greater
than the dollars spent by the government in the arts.
If this were only a financial issue, arts funding would be doubled.
Since it's a cultural war, however, it will probably be cut further.
Ross.
(Stepping down from my soapbox now)
XMK...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
"paid" for his players. Yes, well, if you will recall, about that same
time the censorship was so severe in England, London spcifically, that
there were only 2 "approved" theatres. Most theatre survived as a
"membership": organization to get past the govt censors. In fact, as I
recall, the "Master of Revels" was established to examine all plays and
liscnece all acting companies beginning in 1574. In fact, their censorh
ship philoshpy did not end until about 1965 with the play "A Taste of
Honey." Thats what you get with Govt sponsorship.
NS Brown
[I wrote:]
: > First, are we going to establish state and local councils to
: > disburse funds to needy pizza deliverypersons? Needy lawyers?
: > Needy retail clothing merchants? What is so special about art
: > (as opposed to any other profession) that we should have special
: > supports for needy artists?
[Scott Walters responds:]
: 1. Art is a reflection of and a nourishment for the soul of a nation.
If I want a preacher, I'll go to a church. By what credentials
does an artist lay claim to "nourish the soul of a nation?"
: 2. The cost of producing art in our society has grown to a degree that
: requires either excessive admission charges (so only a few can afford to
: attend), or excessive popularity (so that it must appeal to a vast portion
: of our population).
First, the cost of producing *most* art is no greater than
the cost of most hobbies. Second, there are *lots* of things
that are very expensive ... like office buildings. We don't
usually fund those with public money.
: 3. We're not supporting Needy Artists any more than funding libraries
: supports Needy Librarians. We're supporting the value of art in and on our
: society, and recognizing that its quality will be diminished is forced to
: survive in the marketplace.
I disagree that the quality of art will diminish if forced
to survive in the marketplace. You're essentially arguing
that John and Jane Public are Phillistinic boors who are
incapable of recognizing what is "really good stuff." So
who made *your* opinions any more valid than theirs?
: 4. As in days of olde, if the government doesn't fund the arts, quality
: art will become a pleasure for the wealthy. Is that democracy? Should
: Picasso's "Guernica" only be able to be viewed by the person rich enough to
: purchase it?
Many (if not most) of the greatest works of art, throughout
history, were funded either by the artist him/herself or through
*private* sponsors. Indeed, most of the government-funded art
I've seen from history was heavily censored (by the funding
government) and thoroughly dull.
NS Brown
[Regarding my constitutional arguments, Nathan wrote:]
: I took the opportunity to bring my copy of the Constitution into the
: office with me. I hadn't thought to recite the preamble to myself
: earlier. However, right after the phrase about "provid[ing] for the
: common defense" there is another little phrase about "promote the general
: welfare."
The Preamble is precatory language with no binding legal
significance.
[I wrote:]
: > I'm not referring to whether it's "useful." I'm referring to
: > whether it's *legal*. Every dollar the government spends is
: > an act of *law*. Our constitutional system defines a Federal
: > government which consists only of *delegated* powers; it has
: > no *inherent* power (unlike the states, who have the power
: > inherent in sovreignty). So any act of the Federal government
: > is subject to constitutional oversight, and can be held to the
: > limits of the Constitution's delegated powers.
: Thank you so much for the civics lesson. :-) Obviously this is so.
: However, you state this in such a way that it would appear that this will
: lead to an inevitable conclusion. Are we to conclude that you think the
: NEA is unconstitutional?
Yes.
[I wrote:]
: > I argue that "necessary" ought to mean that the government is
: > limited to those activities which the private sector *cannot*
: > do, either because: (a) the market forces which enable the
: > private sector do not apply in a given arena (e.g.: health
: > care); (b) the problem requires a "maintenance budget" which
: > would not be funded when the need wasn't apparent (e.g.: defense);
: > (c) the problem requires a solution which should rightfully belong
: > to everyone (e.g.: roads); or, (d) the problem requires a level
: > of coordination which the private sector cannot supply (e.g.: the
: > organizational skills of FEMA).
[Nathan replies:]
: A) See Scott Walters' post. (Not to bring you into this discussion,
: Scott, but you said it well. :-) ) B) Arguable on both sides.
: C) Well, if I remember correctly, that's the point of the NEA, etc.
: D) Well, 2 or 3 out of 4 ain't bad. (However, arts management can be
: chancy with or without public sector coordination.)
(a) Market forces are fine for funding art -- there are
willing buyers who can make informed choices among willing
sellers. That's all you really need for a free market.
(b) Art simply cannot be analogized to defense. It's not
like we *need* to keep a number of artists hanging around,
just in case there's suddenly an art shortage.
(c) Art cannot be analogized to roads either. If roads
were privatized, commerce would strangle. If a given person
owns a work of art (I own a few myself) ... well, that's no
different from a given person owning a home.
(d) The most expensive works of art to produce are probably
Broadway plays and Hollywood movies, both of which may have
budgets in the tens of millions of dollars. Neither receives
public funding. Somehow, *they* manage to struggle along on
the resources of investors. Please cite a work of art that
*needed* nationwide coordination and federal funding in order
to happen.
[Again, in response to my constitutional argument, Nathan writes:]
: And here the implication is that there is some clause in the Constitution
: that would *forbid* public funding for the arts. I 've just re-read my
: copy. I don't find such a clause.
You missed the point of my earlier civics lesson, so I'll
repeat it. It's not a matter of "unless the Constutition
says the Federal government *can't* do it," it's a matter
of "whether the Constitution says the Federal government
*can* do it."
The Federal government must *justify* any act it wants to
take. When Congress passed the RICO statute, they argued
its justification under the Commerce Clause (in that
organized crime impacts interstate commerce). Unless the
Congress had been able to find *some* clause in the
Constitution that *permitted* the RICO act, that act would
have been unconstitutional.
So the burden isn't upon me to find some clause which *forbids*
the funding of art. The burden is on you to find some clause
which *permits* it. The United States is a government of
limited and delegated powers; unless the Constitution says
it can, it *can't*.
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
Sam Vagenas
>I can't help throwing my hat into this ring...
>Someone mentioned the multiplier effect of federal dollars granted
>to the arts. This is one of the most important reasons (besides the
>obvious cultural reasons) for federal support of the arts. For every
>dollar the federal government gives to the arts, local economies gain
>about $20--restaurants, hotels, transit, convention centers....
>In Minneapolis, the city is currently struggling to buy the local
>NBA basketball arena. In no way could it be said that NBA bascketball
>is not a self-supporting endeavor, but the Minneapolis City Council
>has recognized that the money that basketball brings into Downtown
>Minneapolis is worth shelling out public money for up front. The arts
>work the same way. There is great benefit to those attending the
>theatre, but even those who do not, benefit from the cultural climate
>that arts organizations bring to a city or region.
Are you saying that the Congress should help subsidize basketball
teams? Now, with the current Congress that may be doable.
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
> Granted, the marketplace we work in is a cut-throat one, and without
> subsidies it is hard to make ends meet. Without these contributions the
> theater will have to pander more to the likes and dislikes of the people.
> I don't think, however, that this is necessarily a bad thing. It has been
> said that theater will become more like a Friday the 13th movie, because
> that's what the public wants....
> Well isn't that what the theater is supposed to do...entertain?
Depends who you ask. Aristotle said that the purpose of theatre was to
entertain; Horace said that its purpose was to entertain and enlighten.
This is a debate that has gone on since the beginning of the theatre. I
believe that, while Aristotle may have said its purpose was to entertain,
he did not mean entertain in the sense of Friday the 13th. Or at least
*solely* in the manner of Friday the 13th. "Oedipus" is an exciting,
entertaining play; but it has a serious purpose. Can one say the same
about "Friday the 13th"? Listen, I have no quarrel with people who create
and consume mind candy--I do so myself on a regular basis. I also have no
problem with people who make junk food and candy--but I don't want a
regular diet composed solely of it. The masses prefer mind candy--"After a
hard day at work, I don't want to *think* anymore"--OK, fine. But our
society will be sadly impoverished if that is all that our artists create.
And there is a large group of people who *do* want thought-provoking,
soul-enhancing works of art--the group just isn't large enough to fund the
enormous production costs needed to produce such art.
Art
> has always been a struggle between making an artistic statement and
> pleasing the audience. To illustrate lets take MacBeth and Pulp Fiction.
> Shakespeare wrote a masterpiece in MacBeth, but he didn't forget to
> entertain. There is the scene with the Gatekeeper, making drunken baudy
> jokes. This certainly does not detract from this play. Does the fact that
> it entertains make it any less a masterpiece? No! It makes it MORE of one.
> Now you say that the audiences of today are less educated, that they are
> less likely to enjoy a work that is artisctically sound. Pulp Fiction? It
> is not only one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a long time,
> it also has a very high degree of artistic craft.
Yes, but does it have anything to say? I have not yet seen "Pulp Fiction,"
although I have heard good things about it. I have not noticed that it is
in danger of threatening "The Lion King" for attendance anytime soon.
"Pulp Fiction" may very well be an excellent film (although comparing it to
"Macbeth" may be a *bit* of a reach), but does it outweigh the mountains of
garbage that fill our theatres on a daily basis? Obviously, the popular
film industry turns out a quality film occasionally (e.g., I thought
"What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" was an extraordinary film)--hell, even a
stopped clock is right twice a day--but the *purpose* of commercial filmdom
is not to create art, but to make money. We need to have at least a few
people who are focussed on creating art. It's like political leadership:
there are those politicians who check the polls and then decide their
opinions; and then there are those who hold fast to their beliefs and
*lead* the public to places it didn't know it wanted to go.
A quick story: I was working at a community theatre that did a poll of
its audience. It asked people what kind of plays it would like to see.
The answer, predictably, was more comedies and musicals. Then the
questionnaire asked what recent plays they had seen they had enjoyed most:
overwhelmingly, most of the people wrote "The Shadow Box" and "Equus." You
know, those two well-known musical comedies, "The Shadow Box" and "Equus."
People don't really know what they want. Artists should lead.
> To make a long story short. As long as theater has been around,
> its most difficult task has been to package a piece of Art in a form that
> the audience can swallow. To take this task away by relying on Federal
> Funds and not the audience is to artificially distance yourself from the
> heart of theater. If you deny the Marketplace and subsist off of Federal
> Funds eventually you'll reach the point where you are so abstracted from
> your audience that no one will come to your plays...but it will be OK
> because the government supports the Arts.
I agree that the trend of the Outsider Romantic Artist has gone a bit far,
and those who wish to create art have, at times, become arcane and
incomprehensible. This is the flipside of the all-too-obvious pandering of
artists who create the likes of "Friday the 13th." But don't throw the baby
out with the bathwater. The problem, as I see it, is that the artist's
work is not valued in our society, and so they develop an "attitude"--why
not? "Hey, if you don't like me, I don't like you either." We are in need
of rapprochment. Is the best way to do this to eliminate the artist's
source of income?
> Don't look at being thrust into the marketplace as a bad thing.
> Robert Frost once wrote that poetry without rhyme is like playing tennis
> without a net.
Note: he did *not* say, "Poetry without *profit* is like playing tennis
without a net." By the way, without public funding, do you think there
will be anymore poetry published? Oh, hell, let those poet's learn to write
advertising jingles and lyrics for Michael Bolton, right?
Such is theater's relationship to its audience. Revel in
> it. Accept the challenge. Play to your audience. Don't lean on Federal
> funds like a crutch. Its hard to play tennis in crutches!
It's also hard to play tennis without balls, which is what the marketplace
takes away first...
> Matt McLaughlin
Scott Walters
Scott E. Walters
Brown) wrote:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [I wrote:]
> : > First, are we going to establish state and local councils to
> : > disburse funds to needy pizza deliverypersons? Needy lawyers?
> : > Needy retail clothing merchants? What is so special about art
> : > (as opposed to any other profession) that we should have special
> : > supports for needy artists?
>
> [Scott Walters responds:]
> : 1. Art is a reflection of and a nourishment for the soul of a nation.
>
> If I want a preacher, I'll go to a church. By what credentials
> does an artist lay claim to "nourish the soul of a nation?"
Church has an agenda: to propogate a particular theological and religious
view. The arts are secular, and can address issues that do not fall within
the scope of religion. One critic wrote that the arts exist to "make the
stone stony"--i.e., to make us *see* again things that we had stopped
seeing because our sense had become dulled through repetition. To clearly
see things in our world in a fresh manner is truly soul nourishing. Look
at our art and literature throughout history: we make sense of our world
through the stories well tell ourselves. Even 19th-century blood-and-guts
melodrama was an attempt to deal with things that people were afraid of.
You are truly minimizing the role of art if you look at it solely as a way
to kill a few hours--the entertainment equivalent of an after dinner mint.
>
> : 2. The cost of producing art in our society has grown to a degree that
> : requires either excessive admission charges (so only a few can afford to
> : attend), or excessive popularity (so that it must appeal to a vast portion
> : of our population).
>
> First, the cost of producing *most* art is no greater than
> the cost of most hobbies. Second, there are *lots* of things
> that are very expensive ... like office buildings. We don't
> usually fund those with public money.
Yes, but the cost of office buildings are passed on to the consumer. If a
similar approach was applied to the arts, only the wealthiest members of
our society could afford to partake of the arts. As it is, it takes a
middle class income in order to afford many art events (as I believe you
yourself pointed out). It would be much worse without public subsidy.
>
> : 3. We're not supporting Needy Artists any more than funding libraries
> : supports Needy Librarians. We're supporting the value of art in and on our
> : society, and recognizing that its quality will be diminished is forced to
> : survive in the marketplace.
>
> I disagree that the quality of art will diminish if forced
> to survive in the marketplace. You're essentially arguing
> that John and Jane Public are Phillistinic boors who are
> incapable of recognizing what is "really good stuff." So
> who made *your* opinions any more valid than theirs?
What makes it any *less* valid than theirs? Numbers? That there are more
who value "Friday the 13th" than value, say, "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"
or "Vanya on 42nd Street"? Take a look at commercial television and then
tell me again about artistic quality. I am not asking that John and Jane
Public be deprived of their weekly dose of "Married With Children." What I
am asking is that I not be deprived of my choice of entertainment, which,
due to economic forces, would likely disappear without subsidy.
>
> : 4. As in days of olde, if the government doesn't fund the arts, quality
> : art will become a pleasure for the wealthy. Is that democracy? Should
> : Picasso's "Guernica" only be able to be viewed by the person rich enough to
> : purchase it?
>
> Many (if not most) of the greatest works of art, throughout
> history, were funded either by the artist him/herself or through
> *private* sponsors. Indeed, most of the government-funded art
> I've seen from history was heavily censored (by the funding
> government) and thoroughly dull.
Your first point--that many of the greatest works of art were funded by the
artist himself--is historically inaccurate. Up until the Romantic era, the
vast majority of artists were subsidized through patronage. Now, let's
talk about "private" sponsors. Let's take theatre, since this is a theatre
discussion group: Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes? Sponsored
by government appointed choregus (wealthy citizens selected by the
government to pay for the production of their plays). Shakespeare?
Subsidized by the Lord Chamberlain, whose money came from taxing the
citizens. Moliere? On the payroll of Louis XIV. I could go on, but the
point is that artists have always been on the public payroll. Were
"Oedipus," "Macbeth" and "Tartuffe" dull?
Finally, you are assuming that artists who were subsidized by the
wealthy or by the marketplace were not heavily censored. There is explicit
censorship (Stalin's "socialist realism," or Shakespeare's company being
unable to present "Richard II" for many years because Elizabeth felt that
it was about her) and there is implicit censorship (if you're being paid by
Mobil Oil, you're not going to write a play about, say, the damage caused
by major oil spills). The old saying that the person who pays the fiddler
calls the tune is true, and it doesn't matter if that person is the
government, a rich individual, or a mass of consumers. So don't try to
convince me that, by cutting government subsidy, you are freeing the artist
to exercise greater breadth of expression. You're just placing the reins
in somebody else's hands.
>
> Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
A common expression, which reinforces the appalling idea that things are
only of worth unless they paid for. Which is why humankind is so screwed
up right now. Didn't you ever hear that the best things in life are
free??? :-)
>
> Cris
scott walters
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
Actually, I believe Edward Bond's "Saved" shattered government censorship
in England. As far as the Elizabethan's were concerned, Shakespeare's
theatre was built outside the walls of London-proper so as to avoid such
censorship. But what is your point here? That the censorship of the arts
that occurred in England (which, by the way, was not connected to the
funding of the arts, but came through local governing bodies, especially in
the City of London) negates the value of Shakespeare, Marlowe, et al? That
Shakespeare would have written better plays if the Lord Chamberlain hadn't
subsidized the company? I'm very puzzled by what youare saying, and how it
supports Chris's arguments.
scott walters
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
> I find, as I grow older, that I have become very different from the
> staunch democrat I was at opne time. More and more I think, "Just leave
> me the hell alone, Big Brother, and let me live my life. " But, as
> I age and grow in experience, I find that the deomcratic party that I
> was once a part of and loved has become a nightmare of "Let me take care
> of you, don't you worry about a thing." Abnd "You are not responsible
> or capable of doing anything on your own, so let US do it for you."
> but, perhaps it is not me that has changed. I joined the Democratic
> party (well, not offically, since I was 9 years old at the time) when
> I first heard the wors:" Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask
> insteadh, What can I do for my country." What has happened? Are we
> no longer capapble of surviging without Big Bor jumping in?
Actually, I have always found this an appalling quotation. Government
exists to benefit the citizenry, not the other way around. Also, you might
want to examine just what you mean by "leave me the hell alone, Big
Brother, and let me live my life." You are relying on government far more
than you realize. Every time you drive on roads, call the police or fire
department, buy food at reasonable prices or do dozens of things yo9u do
every day you are utilizing the government. What you are actually saying
is, "I've got mine. Now get out of my face and don't bother me about the
people who haven't got there's yet." Which is the words of a glutton.
Please develop your sense of justice and compassion.
scott walters
Scott E. Walters
Brown) wrote:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [Regarding my constitutional arguments, Nathan wrote:]
> : I took the opportunity to bring my copy of the Constitution into the
> : office with me. I hadn't thought to recite the preamble to myself
> : earlier. However, right after the phrase about "provid[ing] for the
> : common defense" there is another little phrase about "promote the general
> : welfare."
>
> The Preamble is precatory language with no binding legal
> significance.
Oh, kill me. Didn't a supreme court justice write something to the effect
that law exists in the spirit of the law, not the letter. You're splitting
hairs. "...no binding legal significance." Bosh!
Yes, there are willing buyers. But given the emormous costs associated
with the creation of much art (particularly theatre), they have to be rich
to do it. Peter Brook posited a future where we did performances for one
billionaire who really liked theatre. The future according to Cris?
>
> (b) Art simply cannot be analogized to defense. It's not
> like we *need* to keep a number of artists hanging around,
> just in case there's suddenly an art shortage.
What??? If artists can't make a living, there *will* be a shortage. At
least a shortage of quality artists. Let's look at this another way: let's
stop paying engineers a decent salary (or, hell, any salary at all) and see
how many are standing around after a year or so. But, hey, who needs 'em.
We do *need* to have artists hanging around, because our massive,
technological, and impersonal society is well on its way to becoming
inhuman and unthinking. The only defense we have against this is our
thinkers, which include our artists.
>
> (c) Art cannot be analogized to roads either. If roads
> were privatized, commerce would strangle.
Good Lord, heaven perish the thought! Strangling commerce! Oh, *I* see, the
constitutional right to commerce...
If a given person
> owns a work of art (I own a few myself) ... well, that's no
> different from a given person owning a home.
Well, let's see. If I owned a road...
>
> (d) The most expensive works of art to produce are probably
> Broadway plays and Hollywood movies, both of which may have
> budgets in the tens of millions of dollars. Neither receives
> public funding. Somehow, *they* manage to struggle along on
> the resources of investors. Please cite a work of art that
> *needed* nationwide coordination and federal funding in order
> to happen.
Take a look at Broadway plays, Cris. "Angels in America," say, which
recently won all kinds of awards. Didn't it come from a subsidized
theatre? In fact, didn't nearly all of the straight plays on Broadway
originate in subsidized regional theatres? Film is another thing entirely:
it is a mass produced product, and is able to participate in the mass
market. Theatre and other art, by its very nature, is unable to partake of
the mass market. Also, Broadway hasn't been that healthy of late, either.
scott walters
Kevin Sawad Brooks
NS Brown <nsb...@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>Cris here. :)
>... The GOP's reasons for playing slash-and-burn with
>the NEA/NEH/PBS are censorial, pure and simple.
>
>Mine aren't.
>
What's the difference if *the effects* are the same?
>I'd like it very much if our government got back to spending
>money on the things the Constitution *requires*, and leave as
>much of the rest of it as possible to the private sector.
does the Constitution require the U.S. government to
take my tax money and give it to corporations as
"incentives" and taxcuts? i don't hear the Republicans
pushing this Contract on America talking about pulling
the plug on this type of corporate wellfare.
> By
>and large, government is not an efficient wealth transfer
>system (too much gets syphoned off in the process of governing),
money in capitalism is not an efficient system, that's
how people make profit!--someone else looses. surprise.
>and the net result is that the goods and services provided by
>government cost more than they would in the private sector.
>So, unless the particular good or service is something the
>private sector *can't* provide efficiently (e.g.: defense,
>roads, health care(!)), I'd rather see the government keep its
>greedy paws out of my wallet.
>
uh, they don't want health care,
as was obvious by their campaign
against the Clinton plan.
>I also think it's unreasonable for artists to accept government
>money without accepting government oversight.
I don't see this as a necessary relation.
I one is born *into* a political system,
one does not have to accept everything that
system imposes. what constitutes oversight?
>Even *defense
>contractors* have to submit bids, and produce something the
>government wants. That's part of dipping one's nose in the
>public trough. And since I loathe the very thought of the
>Newt-wits having censorial power over art ("put a little more
>red over there on that number one, okay Rufus?"), I'd rather
>sweep it out of their domain entirely.
>
>Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
>
No opinion is "just and opinion." it is entwined
in a network of discourses and rhetorics that no
single person originates nor controls. nonetheless
we can affect the texture of that network.
>Cris
--
Take an object Take a canvas
Do something to it Put a mark on it
Do something else to it Put another mark on it
" " " " " " " " " "
--Jasper Johns
Scott E. Walters
Brown) wrote:
> Cris here. :)
>
> [In rebuttal to those who would lump me in with the Newt-wits,
> I wrote:]
> : >... The GOP's reasons for playing slash-and-burn with
> : >the NEA/NEH/PBS are censorial, pure and simple.
> : >
> : >Mine aren't.
> : >
>
> [Kevin replies:]
> : What's the difference if *the effects* are the same?
>
> If you can't answer your own question here, I think
> perhaps a course or two in logic might help.
Perhaps. But I believe it was the good old American Pragmatist
philosophers (William James, I think) who posited that, if two propositions
resulted inthe same effect, then for all practical intents there is no
difference between them. As someone else (Marx?) once said, "The road to
hell is paved with good intentions." Of course, it's still the road to
hell...
--Scott Walters
>
> [I wrote:]
> : >I'd like it very much if our government got back to spending
> : >money on the things the Constitution *requires*, and leave as
> : >much of the rest of it as possible to the private sector.
>
> [Kevin replies:]
> : does the Constitution require the U.S. government to
> : take my tax money and give it to corporations as
> : "incentives" and taxcuts? i don't hear the Republicans
> : pushing this Contract on America talking about pulling
> : the plug on this type of corporate wellfare.
>
> Why not debate me on the basis of what *I've* said,
> instead of on the basis of positions you're attributing
> to me in total ignorance of my point of view?
>
> [I wrote:]
> : >I also think it's unreasonable for artists to accept government
> : >money without accepting government oversight.
>
> [Kevin replies:]
> : I don't see this as a necessary relation.
> : I one is born *into* a political system,
> : one does not have to accept everything that
> : system imposes. what constitutes oversight?
>
> Simple. Jesse Helms says "write me a play about white people
> who are good, decent, hardworking family folks who get robbed
> by ignorant black people all the time, until they finally
> take America back for the *real* Americans" ...
>
> ... and you write his play, his way. Period.
>
> He who pays the piper names the tune.
>
> (For those who wouldn't have figured out the obvious without
> the help of a two-by-four, the prior quote attributed to
> Helms was *not* said by Helms, and is certainly *not* my own
> view. It was offered purely by way of illustration.)
>
> If you want government money for your work, you have to play
> by the same rules as any other government contractor. Make
> what they want.
>
> Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
>
> Cris
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
> If the best things in life are free, (Not something I necessarily agree
> with :) ) Why are we arguing $$?
> BTW, are you and I , Scott, the only two who arre arguing this point?
> Doesn't anyone care out there? These are pretty important issues.
> K-O
While the *best* things in life may be free, it doesn't follow that
*everything* in life is free. Alas. Also, I would be willing to entertain
the argument that art is not one of the best things... ;-)
My experience has been that, when a lively discussion is taking place,
most people very quickly grow impatient with the back-and-forth honing of
the points, and demand either an immediate solution or a cessation of
discussion. Which is why there is so little invigorating thoughts in the
arts most of the time. Too darn polite by half. Perhaps you or Cris may
change my way of thinking a little, or at least allow me an opportunity to
develop my arguments more fully and strongly. But I predict that very
shortly there will be a post telling us to "shut up, you're not going to
change anybody's mind anyway." Sigh.
scott walters (enjoying sharpening my blade on your whetstone)
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
> Nathan, Nathan, Nathan, it did not make for "lousy theatre" but it did
> make for censored theatre. Shakespeares plays, at least a few of them, were
> skewed to pariase the Queen. Also, Moliere, if you will recall, in his
> last act of Tartuffe, has this silly out of place rambling about how
> the King is so wise and has known all about Tartuffe and his decietful
> ways. that was takced on to appease the govt.
Actually, most of Moliere's plays have a similar arbitrary ending. See
Walter Kerr's brilliant essay in "Tragedy and Comedy." And while such
appeasement may disturb your sensibilities, it certainly is no worse than
if it had been, say, an anonymous policeman who had been keeping an eye on
Tartuffe blah blah blah. Also, there is a difference between praising a
patron and censorship: one is an addition of material, the other a
subtraction. You're gonna have a hard time arguing that Shakespeare's and
Moilere's oeuvre would have been better without "censorship," I'm afraid.
Better to stick with the Soviet artists of the 1930s. You could have a
field day with Mayakovsky or Meyerhold. --Scott
Scott E. Walters
wrote:
> Posted "People don't know what they really want." The absolute arrogance
> of that statement amazes me. Maybe they just don't want what you want.
> My goodness, I am appalled but such snobbery.
Quoting sentences out of context appalls me. The context was that a poll
indicated that audience members said they wanted comedies and musicals, but
also said that their most enjoyable theatrical experience had been "The
Shadow Box" and "Equus." Note: I did not say that people don't know what
they *like.* What I implied is that people like a lot more than they think
they like, and also that they often cannot imagine what a new thing might
be like, but would like it if they saw it. Most of the time, if asked,
people think they want the tried and true--more of the smae, please. But
they will flock to the new and original ONCE SOMEBODY GIVES IT TO THEM.
But you will never give them something new and original if you put too
great a store in what they *say* they want. Artists should lead, not
follow, in the realm of the imagination. --Scott
NS Brown
[In rebuttal to those who would lump me in with the Newt-wits,
I wrote:]
: >... The GOP's reasons for playing slash-and-burn with
: >the NEA/NEH/PBS are censorial, pure and simple.
: >
: >Mine aren't.
: >
[Kevin replies:]
: What's the difference if *the effects* are the same?
If you can't answer your own question here, I think
perhaps a course or two in logic might help.
[I wrote:]
: >I'd like it very much if our government got back to spending
: >money on the things the Constitution *requires*, and leave as
: >much of the rest of it as possible to the private sector.
[Kevin replies:]
: does the Constitution require the U.S. government to
: take my tax money and give it to corporations as
: "incentives" and taxcuts? i don't hear the Republicans
: pushing this Contract on America talking about pulling
: the plug on this type of corporate wellfare.
Why not debate me on the basis of what *I've* said,
instead of on the basis of positions you're attributing
to me in total ignorance of my point of view?
[I wrote:]
: >I also think it's unreasonable for artists to accept government
: >money without accepting government oversight.
[Kevin replies:]
: I don't see this as a necessary relation.
: I one is born *into* a political system,
: one does not have to accept everything that
: system imposes. what constitutes oversight?
Simple. Jesse Helms says "write me a play about white people
who are good, decent, hardworking family folks who get robbed
by ignorant black people all the time, until they finally
take America back for the *real* Americans" ...
... and you write his play, his way. Period.
He who pays the piper names the tune.
(For those who wouldn't have figured out the obvious without
the help of a two-by-four, the prior quote attributed to
Helms was *not* said by Helms, and is certainly *not* my own
view. It was offered purely by way of illustration.)
If you want government money for your work, you have to play
by the same rules as any other government contractor. Make
what they want.
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
NathanThomas
writes:
>Its not "the government rules everything" vs "absolute freedom".
>Do we let the gov *control* Policemen, Firemen, Our Roads, Our
> Hospitols, Our Dry Cleaners, Our Pet MManicurists?
> My opinion(for what its worth) is that the government should only
> *control* that which is absolutely needed for survival.
> Matt McLaughlin
> Vile...@aol.com
[Remarks edited and emphasized by respondant.]
Hello,
I do not want to continue this much further, but this is an insidious idea
that must be countered repeatedly in the United States.
In the United States, the people *are* the government. The 'government'
is not some seperate entity. We are the government.
Were I able, I would devote my life to reminding Americans of that single
point. Regardless of party or political interest, we are the government.
An important point that must never be forgotten,
Nathan
nat...@adv.cal.msu.edu
NathanThomas
writes:
> Nathan, Nathan, Nathan, it did not make for "lousy theatre" but it did
> make for censored theatre. Shakespeares plays, at least a few of them,
were
> skewed to pariase the Queen. Also, Moliere, if you will recall, in his
> last act of Tartuffe, has this silly out of place rambling about how
> the King is so wise and has known all about Tartuffe and his decietful
> ways. that was takced on to appease the govt.
Hello,
Now this I would find to be a much more interesting discussion. Issues of
censorship throughout history have varied. For example, obviously plays
had to be approved throughout the Restoration period. However, I've yet
to see anyone argue that any degree of censorship played any part in the
shift away from the sex comedies of, say, the 1690s. The Puritans, the
Ladies, etc. are often mentioned in this regard, but never the government
per se. I've even read an essay in which it was argued that audience
tastes changed as courtiers tried to garner favor with the devout William
and Mary, but the essayist did not even hint at possible censorial
control.
Certainly Shakespeare was censored as well. We're told that there was
direct royal concern about "Richard II." Nevertheless, Shakespeare wrote
the play freely and the play was freely published.
This is not to say that I in any way support censorship. My point is to
contrast this range of censorship with that of Stalinist Russia. An
interesting case in that regard is the production history of Shvarts' play
"The Dragon." Shavarts was big in 'kiddie lit.' The play takes as its
canvas the mythical town that offers a virgin girl to the dragon each year
to pacify the beast. Sir Lancelot (having been previously mortally
wounded a number of times) (he got better) wanders into the town and slays
the dragon, getting mortally wounded in the process. The dragon is
presented as a mild-mannered nebbish. Once Lancelot kills the dragon and
has been mortally wounded, the town's mayor sets himself up as the
dragon's replacement. The town's situation remains basically unchanged.
Lancelot gets better and returns to kill the mayor. At the end of the
play there's a hint that Lancelot may now turn into a 'dragon.'
Well, the play is written as a charming, kind-of children's story. The
government would allow the play to be shown/published. Then they would
pull it off the stage. Then they would allow it to be seen again ("It's
just a children's story."). Then they'd pull it again when they figured
out that the play might have more depth than at first glance.
Of course that story is much more charming than what was done to censor
such artists as Meyerhold. (If you have read Braun's article about
Meyerhold's last days in "New Theatre Quarterly," you should do so.)
("1984" is mild by comparison.)
So, yes, there was censorship. However, the one word encompasses a wide
range of actual events. Considering that free speech as a guaranteed
right is relatively new in the course of history, the majority of artists
have labored under some degree of censorship.
One way to think about this question is to consider that the degree of
freedom may be derived from the answer, free to do what? While
Shakespeare wrote under official royal censorship, he was evidently able
to write largely what he chose. This was even more true of Restoration
playwrights and *very much* less so by Stalinist Soviet playwrights.
Are there any detailed histories of theatrical censorship out there? A
graduate project (a dissertation perhaps?) for some enterprising student.
. . . .
Best wishes,
Nathan
nat...@adv.cal.msu.edu
VileSpot
...............................................
In the United States, the people *are* the government. The 'government'
is not some seperate entity. We are the government.
Were I able, I would devote my life to reminding Americans of that single
point. Regardless of party or political interest, we are the government.
...................................
Respectfully, Nathan, that's a load of bull. Our goverment is one "of the
people, by the people, and for the people", but that is a far cry from
saying that we are the goverment. We all have a say in the way that our
country is run on election day. But unless you are an elected official, it
ends there. "Government" is a very separate entity from "the people". True
we have some control over it but we are not synonimous. Its like a check
and cash. One stands for the other yet they are separate and have very
different qualities.
When I used the phrase "the Government controls" I meant just that.
Our entire discussion has centered on the fact that government is a
separate entity which we have control over and which controls us. We were
discussing how we would perhaps change the Gov so that its control over us
would lessen or vice versa. Now to say that "we" and "Gov" are the same
thing is to deny our entire discussion. What in hell were we talking
about. As far as I'm concerned this we are the Government stuff is petty
semantics. It may look good on paper, but try telling the cop who stops
you for speeding that he can't give you a ticket because "I run this damn
country". It won't be just a verbal warning you'll get then!
Matt McLaughlin
Vile...@aol.com
VileSpot
maybe if anyone has horror stories of censorship today, that might fit in
nicely.
Matt McLaughlin
Vile...@aol.com
NathanThomas
Brown) writes:
> Cris here. :)
I happen to prefer NYC's
> tastes to thise in rural Iowa, but that doesn't change the
> fact that a whole lot more people are in line with Iowa's tastes
> than with NYC's. (I'd suggest that Iowa is a whole lot closer
> to Jesse Helms' rhetoric than you'd think.)
> Cris
Now just hold on one minute. . . {*sound of sleeves being rolled up*}
You can say what you like preeeetty much anything you want on any number
of subjects, but I'll hear no such slander against the great state of
Iowa.
From 1987 through 1991 I travelled extensively throughout the continental
United States (and occasionally into Canada) from northern Washington
state to San Diego, from El Paso to International Falls, from Vermont to
the Flordia keys. Iowa is one of the more literate states in the nation,
and often noted as the most literate. A recent Newsweek article trumpeted
the advanced use of computer networking in Iowa. And when the
artist-once-known-as-Prince premiered his first ballet, where did it
debut? Iowa City in Hancher Auditorium (give Wally C. credit for
something). For many years the Creamery Theatre has done quite well on
the business provided by local farmers. ("It's raining. I can't plant.
Let's go see us some Shakespeare.") And of course Iowa City is home of
the Iowa Writers Workshop. Jesse Helms wants to be a country of militant
Baptists. Iowa is full of pacifist Lutheran and Brethren people. The
Amana Colony was started as a commune-istic pacifist community.
Why, why, sir, I may have to ask you to step outside. {*sound of the
search for my Groucho make-up*}
"Is this heaven?"
"No. It's Iowa."
"Sure seems like heaven."
BTW, did I mention I was from Iowa,
Nathan
just another theatre geek
>Brown) wrote:
>> First, the cost of producing *most* art is no greater than
>> the cost of most hobbies. Second, there are *lots* of things
>> that are very expensive ... like office buildings. We don't
>> usually fund those with public money.
Ummm....I wouldn't say that if I were you......
A LOT of buildings get the advantage of tax breaks, local
government loans, outright grants, etc.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
>[I wrote:]
>: >I also think it's unreasonable for artists to accept government
>: >money without accepting government oversight.
>
>Simple. Jesse Helms says "write me a play about white people
>who are good, decent, hardworking family folks who get robbed
>by ignorant black people all the time, until they finally
>take America back for the *real* Americans" ...
>
>
>He who pays the piper names the tune.
>
may not agree with Helms... and even if Helms were to disqualify certain
artistic activities that does not mean he is footing the bill... I am, just
as much as he is and I would rather my $ go to puppet theatres, museums,
and struggling artists than military marching bands (which get more money
than the NEA).
People like Helms or McCarthy, because they can distort issues and
frighten people into supporting them may have less to do with
the interests of the government ("We the people") than the artists
themselves.
I'd have no problem respecting government criteria if it did represent
the genuine interests of the community I was making art for. I would
not hang Jeff Koons in an Amish church... likewise, some dude from
the Carolinas has no business telling me what kind of art to make in NYC.
If money is given collectively it goes without saying that the art world,
as a whole, should reflect the complexity and diversity of the nation.
I don't think Helms has that as a goal.
NS Brown
[PJRH wrote:]
: I'd have no problem respecting government criteria if it did represent
: the genuine interests of the community I was making art for. I would
: not hang Jeff Koons in an Amish church... likewise, some dude from
: the Carolinas has no business telling me what kind of art to make in NYC.
: If money is given collectively it goes without saying that the art world,
: as a whole, should reflect the complexity and diversity of the nation.
: I don't think Helms has that as a goal.
Then look to local government -- not the Federal government.
If you want money from a nationwide base, then those "criteria"
will be nationwide too. New York City is on the fringe of the
U.S. in terms of artistic tastes. I happen to prefer NYC's
tastes to thise in rural Iowa, but that doesn't change the
fact that a whole lot more people are in line with Iowa's tastes
than with NYC's. (I'd suggest that Iowa is a whole lot closer
to Jesse Helms' rhetoric than you'd think.)
I have no problem with local government funding of art. First,
it's within the bounds of the Constitution -- state and local
governments can do anything *unless* the state and/or federal
constitutions preclude it; by contrast, the federal government
can't do anything unless the U.S. Constitution *permits* it. So
state and local government have much more latitude.
More importantly, though, local government is likely to be
more responsive. As a general rule of thumb, the closer the
decisionmaker is to the problem, the more responsive that
decisionmaker can be, and the better that decisionmaker can
fine-tune solutions to individual problems.
For these two reasons (constitutionality, responsiveness) I
favor a *major* shift of power *away* from Washington and
back to the state/local level. The NEA/NEH/PBS issue is
only one of dozens I could cite where I'd rather take the
power out of Federal hands and put it back in the hands of
state and local government.
In short, I'm not picking on the arts. I'd like to dismantle
a lot of what the Feds do. Just so happened that the NEA was
the issue raised here.
NS Brown
[Nathan Thomas 'called me out' on my suggestion that the ideology
of the average Iowan is likelier to be closer to Jesse Helms than
the average New York City resident ....]
: Now just hold on one minute. . . {*sound of sleeves being rolled up*}
: You can say what you like preeeetty much anything you want on any number
: of subjects, but I'll hear no such slander against the great state of
: Iowa.
[... details of praise for Iowa elided ...]
: Why, why, sir, I may have to ask you to step outside. {*sound of the
: search for my Groucho make-up*}
First, I didn't intent to slander the great state of Iowa.
I too have travelled all over the U.S., and have found
Midwesterners to be friendly, outgoing, intelligent, and
not at all the "farm boy hicks" our Eastern establishment
media portrays.
Kinda like how we Southerners are not the illiterate, racist
boors that the media portrays. Kinda like how Californians
are not all New Age wackos and serial killers, etc., etc., etc.
Kinda like how the folks who elect Jesse Helms aren't all
militant baptists either....
Fact is that once you get out of the Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-
Washington corridor, *most* folks are a heckuva lot more
conservative than the media would like us to think. (Note:
by "conservative" I mean the true sense of the word, not the
Neo-Rad-Con-New-Religious-Right-Quasi-Facist-Blowhards who
call themselves "conservatives" nowadays. Rush Limbaugh is
*not* a conservative; he's a *statist*, and that's something
quite different.)
The original person said he didn't want the art he put on
in NYC being controlled by the community standard of North
Carolina. My response was to the effect that the community
standards of North Carolina probably more closely reflect the
nationwide standards than do those of NYC ... and if he wants
federal money, he has to go by federal "community standards"
of what gets funded and what doesn't. I chose Iowa as my
exemplar merely because it's the geographic center of the
nation ... and because I happen to think that Iowans and
North Carolinians are more likely to agree on "community
standards" than are Iowans and New Yorkers.
No offense toward Iowa was intended, nor should one be
inferred. The provincialists in NYC think the rest of
us are *all* boors ... I'd take an Iowan, or a Floridian,
or a North Carolinian anytime.
(And for the folks in NYC who are looking for an excuse
to get peeved ... note that I didn't refer to *all* New
Yorkers as "provincialists," and that my comments regarding
"the provincialists in NYC" referred only to the *provin-
cialists* in NYC. Classic example: my fiancee is a best-
selling novelist, and she recently wrote a book set in
Montana. Two of the characters decided to go out for a
shrimp dinner. One of the NYC editors wrote in the margin,
and I am *not* making this up: "Shrimp??? In Montana???"
*That's* provincialism.)
Hmmm ... anyone else I've peeved? ... ah well ...
Christina M. Robertson
I'm assisting the dramaturg for "Company of Angels" and have a question
Iwould love some help with:
In the play, a character sings a song about somone named "Yisrolik" - we
are trying to find any other references to this character; is he just
created for this song or is he a figure in Yiddish folklore or a
recurring character in Yiddish theatre?
Any help would be appreciated - email me at cro...@unix.cc.emory.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh for a muse of fire that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention!"
The Bard
Christina Madelon Robertson (aka Phaedra aka Wednesday aka Columbia aka Red)
--'--,--'--(@
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
says:
>
...
>: If money is given collectively it goes without saying that the art world,
>: as a whole, should reflect the complexity and diversity of the nation.
>: I don't think Helms has that as a goal.
>
>Then look to local government -- not the Federal government.
>If you want money from a nationwide base, then those "criteria"
>will be nationwide too. New York City is on the fringe of the
>U.S. in terms of artistic tastes. I happen to prefer NYC's
>tastes to thise in rural Iowa, but that doesn't change the
>fact that a whole lot more people are in line with Iowa's tastes
>than with NYC's. (I'd suggest that Iowa is a whole lot closer
>to Jesse Helms' rhetoric than you'd think.)
I DON'T have a problem with a shift in emphasis from federal to local... but
Helms isn't just talking about shifting emphasis. He wants to pull
the plug on the federal level. This is VERY bad because, if the NEA went,
I suspect it would be nearly impossible to bring it back in ANY capacity.
We should really know what we are doing. So much could be
lost in the process and I doubt that many local governments, particularily
those without as many wealthy patrons, would be able to do as much.
I don't see killing the NEA in order for "a thousand points" of cultural light
to take over as any kind of solution. What we need is more accountability
between local and federal... but we NEED a federal level as well!
But nobody wants to put together a balanced system that works. That is, a
system that moves from collective to region.
It is easier to cut, cut, cut...
People get on these narrow tracks of thoughts:
Hole in the middle of the painting is good, phallus-like object is bad.
Decentralization is good, federal government is bad.
The NEA needs our energy, not condemnation.
Helms needs to take the rest of his career off.
As for taste... I suspect a taste which is representative of people,
collectively and regionally, would very different from what Helms
is advocating... much more complicated and interesting than the greatest
fears of either the left or right.
So there!
>In short, I'm not picking on the arts. I'd like to dismantle
>a lot of what the Feds do. Just so happened that the NEA was
>the issue raised here.
>
Yes, but you've sloppily confused reworking the NEA with blowing it
to bits. Premature ejaculation and bad politics.
NS Brown
[Regarding my thoughts about axing the NEA/NEH/PBS, Mark wrote:]]
: I DON'T have a problem with a shift in emphasis from federal to local...
: but Helms isn't just talking about shifting emphasis. He wants to pull
: the plug on the federal level. This is VERY bad because, if the NEA went,
: I suspect it would be nearly impossible to bring it back in ANY capacity.
In what capacity to we *need* a Federal NEA? It's very
difficult to even answer this question nowadays -- in
regard to a lot of Federal agencies. The existence of
a Federal agency often means that state/local agencies
won't be created, because "after all, the Federal gov't
is doing this anyway." So we really don't know to what
degree state/local gov't could or would pick up the slack.
My guess is that they'd do more than we'd like to think,
and perhaps more than is being done now, but it's awfully
difficult to trade a bird in the hand for two in the bush.
Helms' solution is to shoot the bird in your hand -- if he
happens to take your hand off in the process, hey, them's
the breaks! I'd rather see a planned and graduated shift
from Federal to state/local implementation, so that we
don't take too many hands off in the process.
: [...] What we need is more accountability
: between local and federal... but we NEED a federal level as well!
: But nobody wants to put together a balanced system that works. That is,
: a system that moves from collective to region.
: It is easier to cut, cut, cut...
I agree that the Federal government is necessary for some
problems. We can't rely on state/local government for
defense (that has failed in the past), or to monitor and
facilitate interstate commerce (that has failed *miserably*
in the past). Nor am I one of those who advocates a virtual
repeal of the 14th Amendment, so that the key provisions of
the Bill of Rights are no longer incoroporated as against
the states (that *really* screwed up in the past).
However, the load borne by Federal government has become
so great, and the inherent inefficiencies of centralization
so expensive, that many of us feel like we're paying more
and more in taxes and have fewer gov't services to show for
it. I don't mind paying taxes; governments need money to
operate. I *do* mind paying taxes when I don't see any
"operating," because so much of the money I pay in goes to
bureaucratic overhead.
I'm neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist. I think
we ought to let capitalism do as much as it can do well and
humanely, and then let socialism (government spending) pick
up the inevitable shortfall. The problem, as I see it, is
that right now we're creating shortfalls....
Ross D. Willits
> The same things happen on the local level; we have a number
> of small theatre groups in my area which are funded (in whole
> or in part) by grants from local businesses, or which receive
> other support (equipment, services) in exchange for acknow-
> ledgments. Again, I try to patronize these businesses whenever
> I can, to let them know I appreciate the support they give the
> arts.
>
This is worthwhile to a great extent. Small theatre companies like
the one I work for (Cricket Theatre in Minneapolis), wouldn't
survive without in-kind donations from local businesses. Our programs
are printed by a local copy shop in return for a prominent ad in
the program. Such donations only go so far however.
In order for a theatre company, or other arts organization to get
major operating grants from the larger corporations and foundations,
it is often necessary to have grants from State Arts Boards or the
NEA on the books to prove to the foundations that the organization
is worth the risk. A small $1000 grant from the NEA often works as
seed money for individual, foundation, and corporate support. With
a small amount of NEA money, a theatre can turn around and raise
twenty times that amount because other funders use NEA and Arts Board
grants as weather vanes.
The miniscule amount of money that goes into the NEA/NEH/CPB has
enormous symbolic value to the organizations and artists that it goes
to. Far more symbolic than anything else.
Ross
Ross D. Willits
> First, the cost of producing *most* art is no greater than
> the cost of most hobbies. Second, there are *lots* of things
> that are very expensive ... like office buildings. We don't
> usually fund those with public money.
>
My BS Detector just went off the chart.
Come on!! Think about producing a Shakespeare play for one second.
There are often 15-20 people in the cast. Then there is the director,
designers, builders, electricians, costumers, stage management, not
to mention the box office staff that sells the tickets, ushers,
publicity... I could list a whole lot more people but I think you
get the picture.
The arts funded by the NEA are not *hobbies* as you so lightly put it.
If by such a term you are suggesting that anyone willing to sacrifice
him/herself to the forge of artistic creation should do so on their
own time and with their own money, well, you must be a lawyer.
By the way, office buildings, while being expensive, DO receive a
great deal of government money to get built. Often property taxes are
waived or reduced to entice developers to build in this city rather
than that one. Then the tenants of those gleaming new office towers
are usually offered tax breaks so that those buildings are filled up.
The total revenue not collected on businesses through tax exemptions
and forced rezoning and the like is hundreds of times greater than
the miniscule amount spent by the NEA.
As I have said before, if this were simply a fiscal matter, the
amount of federal funding for the arts would go up, not down. It is
the financially responsible thing to do. Ask the British.
Ross
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
says:
>: .... This is VERY bad because, if the NEA went,
>: I suspect it would be nearly impossible to bring it back in ANY capacity.
>
>In what capacity to we *need* a Federal NEA? It's very
>difficult to even answer this question nowadays -- in
>regard to a lot of Federal agencies. The existence of
>a Federal agency often means that state/local agencies
>won't be created, because "after all, the Federal gov't
>is doing this anyway." So we really don't know to what
>degree state/local gov't could or would pick up the slack.
>
it would work on the local level? Local governments might be effective now
because the Fed's take much of the burden off of them. Dumping things on
local gov't.'s is also a way of passing the buck... here, it's your problem.
These kind of conservative policies never seem to empower local communities
anyways. Cutting things out of a federal program does not promise local
agencies will pick up the tab... it usually means private individuals
(who can afford to) might.
The public funds of the Federal Gov't. were raped again and again during the
80's. Now, we seems to be the time for blaming the victims.
1. Remember the 30's? The WPA provided comprehensive funding for young
artists. NEARLY ALL THE ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONISTS RECIEVED THIS FUNDING
DURING ESSENTIAL MOMENTS IN THEIR CAREERS! It is precisely because of this
support that NY artists were able to initiate a community and challenge
the powerhouse o'art, Europe.
The intellectual and economic currency gained by this is beyond estimation.
NY appeared on the cultural map and, suddenly, intelligensia weren't
ashamed to hang around. Although we see some problems with the cultural
policies of the past, I think it is fair to say that benefits have been
widespread in many, many ways I don't have time to go into here.
My point is, in this case, a massive Federal program DID create far
reaching benefits. We may need to change or domesticize portions of
such programs today, but to think that such programs are all pork is
foolish.
2. Germany, on the other hand, has not been scant in supporting their arts.
Last year the New York Times declared that Koln was headed to replacing
New York as the western cultural center. I guess Germany has learned the
hard way what happens to a culture that brutalizes or neglects the arts.
Killing the NEA could be very,very painful to the US...
>
>Helms' solution is to shoot the bird in your hand -- if he
>happens to take your hand off in the process, hey, them's
>the breaks! I'd rather see a planned and graduated shift
>from Federal to state/local implementation, so that we
>don't take too many hands off in the process.
Part of the reason new countries had such difficulty rising from their
colonial states, according to some, was that the shift of power was too
sudden. There was no time for local agencies to adapt and train native people.
Violent or sudden movements toward supposed regional empowerment only
served to increase domination by centralized powers. This is what Helms is
doing. Conservative policies have done NOTHING to protect locale
despite the small town rhetoric.
Deregulating multinational corporations just facilitated the destruction
of community and the squashing of the individuals.
>
>...
>I'm neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist. I think
>we ought to let capitalism do as much as it can do well and
>humanely, and then let socialism (government spending) pick
>up the inevitable shortfall. The problem, as I see it, is
>that right now we're creating shortfalls....
There are big problems here. Government spending doesn't=socialism...
and it is silly to use this words as if they could operate at the same
time in any capacity. It might be more accurate to say (although it is
somewhat of a distortion as well) that we have two policies: one funnels
money to the super-rich, the other bribes the poor. That is, socialism
which comes after market is not socialism... but serves to advance capital.
I'm not saying the NEA is a socialist alternative we ought to give a chance.
I'm saying it makes $$$$, it has made $$$$, and bolsters the US's standing
as a "cultural" place condusive to intellectual thought and dynamic
experimentation.
>
And that's a fact.
VileSpot
sense, except for one statement which is one of my pet peeves. He used the
term "intelligencia" to be a fair term to describe artists. I for one find
the term hatefull, as it implies an aloofness and superiority that no
artist deserves to have. Don't get me wrong. Many great works of art are
produced by the "intelligencia", but most of the artists I like are down
to earth people, not in some cliqueish we're better than you society.
Shakespeare was never a member of the "intelligencia" and I for one never
want to be!
Matt McLaughlin
Vile...@aol.com
NS Brown
[PJNR argued that we need the NEA because denying support
to the arts causes a harm to society overall, concluding:]
: And that's a fact.
No, that's just another opinion, worth what we paid for it. :)
Cris
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
One need only look at someone like Pollock to see that this is not a
requirement for even a "great" artist... but art often has much to do
with intellectual conjecture. If serious art were to be impeded, the
art nerds and social critics would likely go elsewhere.
This is one of art's values. It, in many cases, encourages gentile
activity... although the good stuff often does not come from the gentry.
Some even argue that education destroys creativity.
I tend to think that this is a reactionary arguement or, at least,
sadistic: keep 'em dumb and dancin'... and remember how much better
an artist Van Gogh was for his suffering. etc, etc... Soon after that
they try to convince you that cutting your funding will be the best
thing for your art.
Ian Stovall
NS Brown <nsb...@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>Cris here. :)
>
>[Nathan Thomas 'called me out' on my suggestion that the ideology
>of the average Iowan is likelier to be closer to Jesse Helms than
>the average New York City resident ....]
>
>: Now just hold on one minute. . . {*sound of sleeves being rolled up*}
rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft is a bunch of people who help each other, up
until this thread, it had a signal to noise ratio that was unmeasurable.
Please remove r.a.t.s from your header, if any of us want to follow your
flamewar further, we will just subscribe to alt.postmodern
--
isto...@panix.com is - Ian Stovall - Levittown, L.I. New York
"The overture is about to start, you cross your fingers and hold your heart,
Its curtain time and away we go, its just another op'nin of another show!"
"Kiss me Kate" Act I scene 1
NS Brown
[Ian Stovall wrote:]
: rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft is a bunch of people who help each other, up
: until this thread, it had a signal to noise ratio that was unmeasurable.
: Please remove r.a.t.s from your header, if any of us want to follow your
: flamewar further, we will just subscribe to alt.postmodern
First, apparently you haven't been reading yet, because I'm
not having a flamewar with anyone. Disagreement, surely, but
I don't think anyone's gotten personal in more than a jovial
way. I know *I* haven't felt attacked.
Second, either you or one of your r.a.t.s colleagues started
this thread, crossposting to alt.pm (among others). If you're
actually suggesting that you ought to be able to crosspost to
other newsgroups and then cut off dissenting responses because
they increase the signal-to-noise ratio on *your* group ...
well ... you don't know the 'Net very well.
Not everyone who agrees with you is providing "signal."
Not everyone who disagrees with you is providing "noise."
Scott Walters
wrote:
> In article <3fc61u$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vile...@aol.com (VileSpot) says:
If serious art were to be impeded, the
> art nerds and social critics would likely go elsewhere.
> This is one of art's values. It, in many cases, encourages gentile
> activity...
Oh, sure. Make us gentiles carry the ball. Don't we have anough to do?
--Scott
Scott Walters
> In article <3f6jfe$f...@xcalibur.IntNet.net>,
> NS Brown <nsb...@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
> >Cris here. :)
> >
> >[Nathan Thomas 'called me out' on my suggestion that the ideology
> >of the average Iowan is likelier to be closer to Jesse Helms than
> >the average New York City resident ....]
> >
> >: Now just hold on one minute. . . {*sound of sleeves being rolled up*}
>
> rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft is a bunch of people who help each other, up
> until this thread, it had a signal to noise ratio that was unmeasurable.
> Please remove r.a.t.s from your header, if any of us want to follow your
> flamewar further, we will just subscribe to alt.postmodern
>
Ian, Ian. Lighten up. I'd like to suggest we get up a collection on
rec.arts.theatre to buy Ian a sense of humor. All in favor?
scott
VileSpot
attributing to me is actually someone else's comments on one of my prior
letters. I'm never one to back down from an opinion, but when that opinion
isn't even mine...
Matt McLaughlin
Vile...@aol.com
XMK...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
to contribute to this poor under humored soul.
K-O
NathanThomas
Say, I think I have a spare in my old stage manager's kit . . .
{*. . .sound of gnomish scurrying toward the closet. . . .*}
Nathan