Re(2): Theme for a Republican Victory
SJ Symphony
> In article <Cz08F...@freenet.buffalo.edu>, as...@freenet.buffalo.edu
> (Richard M Keeling) writes:
> > [...several suggestions]
>
> Add - Faure's "Requiem".
>
> Gary :-(=
More appropriately would be Verdi's _Requiem_, particularly the "Dies Irae."
Chris Alexander
SJ_Sy...@livewire.com
***************************************************************************
** Transmitted via LiveWire, a Virtual Valley/Metro Newspapers service **
** San Jose, Calif. USA voice: 408.298.8174 e-mail: onl...@livewire.com **
** modem: 408.298.8646 (FirstClass, VT-100, TTY) fax: 408.271-3520 **
***************************************************************************
james schmidt
This is easy. Shostakovich 7th Sym, first movement (the Nazi invader theme,
so harmless and charming at first, so sinister by the end; perhaps Speaker
Gingrich can have it played when he enters rooms)
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Are you nuts? Since when is Gingrich associated with "harmless and charming"?
We'll see in two years whether the end is "sinister," or whether the change
of direction will be to the nation's benefit. I'm betting on the latter, and
hence Shostakovich 10 might be closer to my choice---optimistism breaks
through.
Ray Ch.
Bradford Kellogg
In article <117564617...@livwir.livewire.com>, SJ_Sy...@livewire.com (SJ Symphony) writes:
|> ggard...@aol.com (Ggardne148) writes in <39t7ii$d...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
|>
|> > In article <Cz08F...@freenet.buffalo.edu>, as...@freenet.buffalo.edu
|> > (Richard M Keeling) writes:
|>
|> > > [...several suggestions]
|> >
|> > Add - Faure's "Requiem".
|> >
|> > Gary :-(=
|>
|> More appropriately would be Verdi's _Requiem_, particularly the "Dies Irae."
I think Prokofiev's "The Buffoon" is much more in keeping with the situation.
The story behind the ballet is what I have in mind.
--
Bradford Kellogg __ _ "There is nothing,
br...@viewlogic.com \_) ( ) absolutely nothing,
_________ \ / \ ________ quite so worth doing
\ \_____\__/___)/ / as simply messing
\ \_ / about in boats."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(_\~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
Republican sweep of Congress. I would nominate the Polka from the Shostakovic
h ballet, "The Age of Gold."
I was amused by one suggestion, that of Copland's ever-popular "Fanfare for the
Common Man." I feel fairly sure that Copland, a Jewish homosexual of pronounc
ed leftist political tendencies, would have been appalled both by the
election resulsts and the attempt to appropriate his music.
On a more serious note, I would like to add my $.02 worth about why I think thi
s election will be very bad for classical music (and all the fine arts). I kno
w this is not a political discussion group, so I will confine my comments to th
e impact I see this having on the arts and leave my opinions on other issues
(human/civil rights, the environment, the economy, etc.) aside.
I will make my disclaimer here so I don't have to repeat myself every para
graph. Yes, I know the comments I make do not apply to all Republicans; they m
ay not even apply to most Republicans. I also know some Democrats guilty of th
e same (or at least some of the same) sins. However, since the putsch staged b
y the radical religious right and the nearly total adoption of their agenda, th
e comments below apply to enough Republicans--especially those in positions
of leadership--to be generally valid.
The current tenor of the GOP is authoritarian and anti-intellectual (I sometime
s think Newt Gingrich is determined to punish every intellectual, especially co
llege teachers, for his failure to get tenure). This results in two related at
titudes with extremely important ramifications for the arts. The GOP leadershi
p is:
1) indifferent to public education at all levels
and
2) suspicious of, or overtly hostile to, the arts.
Let me address the second attitude first, which is, I believe, actually less im
portant than the first. Recent history provides more than ample evidence for t
his assertion: from the hysteria surrounding the NEA to the first-ever attempt
to jail a museum director for the contents of an art show to the ever-
increasing censorship efforts around the country. Yes, I know there this is no
constitutional <requirement> for federal support of the arts. I am perfectly
willing to engage in reasonable, rational debate about the appropriateness of s
uch funding. Nonetheless the right-wing posturing around the NEA is all out of
proportion both to its actual expenditures (not even a blip on the screen in t
he total federal budget) and the number of grants that ever been controversial
(some vanishingly small fraction of 1%).
One of the Pats (it doesn't matter which since they are interchangeable in all
important aspects) said that his FIRST act, if elected president, would be to s
hut down the NEA. This promise was greeted by distressingly enthusiastic appla
use. This is not discussion, not debate; this is pandering and war-mongering (
remember Pat Buchanan's pronouncement of a "cultural war?") which encourages ha
tred of the intellectual and the artist. There are many government organs that
spend vastly more money than the NEA in vastly less efficient ways, but
you read about that, if at all, on the back pages. This kind of emotional, hat
e-provoking rhetoric (which often plays fast and loose with the facts and figur
es) is not accidental; this is policy. And it should be scary policy to everyo
ne interested in the arts, whether or not they believe in public funding for th
em.
The first point, the indifference to public education, is probably the more imp
ortant, though. Much of the current Republican leadership is simply not intere
sted in public education (except to restore religious indoctrination via uncons
titional sectarian prayer); even those who are interested in education certainl
y see little or no need for "frills" such as art programs, musical ensembles, t
heater productions, etc. Few private schools are able to provide such programs
, so public schools have always been the prime provider.
I don't have hard figures here, but I can speak anecdotally: although I had a
little exposure to classical music through my family, I learned to love it and
to want to make it my career through playing in public school orchestras. Virt
ually everyone I know in the profession came to it that way. Even more importa
ntly, though, almost everyone I know with an interest in classical music--but w
ho didn't make it their profession--also came to it through participation in sc
hool music programs, especially performing groups.
If arts programs continue to regarded as an "extra" we can live without; if lib
raries continue to lose funds to provide anything beyond books (like the record
s I used to check out every Saturday, and from which I learned an amazing amoun
t of repertory), there will be a vastly reduced audience for classical music--i
ndeed, for all the arts, in the very near future. MTV, virtual reality, and ot
her essentially mindless distractions are already taking their toll on the inte
rests and attention spans of youth. If this trend is not reversed, we may lose
the arts altogether in this country.
The usual disclaimers apply; you know the drill. --MTS
Matthew Bonness
>I was amused by one suggestion, that of Copland's ever-popular "Fanfare for the
> Common Man." I feel fairly sure that Copland, a Jewish homosexual of pronounc
>ed leftist political tendencies, would have been appalled both by the
>election resulsts and the attempt to appropriate his music.
But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common men (i.e.
career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and replace them with
common men.
>graph. Yes, I know the comments I make do not apply to all Republicans; they m
>ay not even apply to most Republicans. I also know some Democrats guilty of th
>e same (or at least some of the same) sins. However, since the putsch staged b
>y the radical religious right and the nearly total adoption of their agenda, th
>e comments below apply to enough Republicans--especially those in positions
>of leadership--to be generally valid.
Republicans consist of older people, who might have started out as starry-
eyed "let's save the world!" Democrats but became increasingly closed-minded,
opposed to change, and conservative over the years. ("Anyone under 30 who
isn't liberal doesn't have a heart; anyone over 30 who isn't conservative
doesn't have a brain.") Seniors like music from their generation, i.e.
_classical_ and jazz. Young people (Democrats) hate their elders' music
(classical, jazz), opting instead for music from their generation, i.e. rap,
pop rock, heavy metal, alternative, classic rock, etc. Republicans are
against offensive _new_ art (explicit rap, porn), especially if the _living_
artists are being subsidized by taxpayer monies. The only way instrumental
classical music can be deemed offensive is the interpretation of its meaning,
and the only major detractor of classical I know of is Susan McClary,
wacko liberal feminist musicologist extraordinaire, who sees Beethoven
Symphonies and Bach fugues as depicting rape and violence.
>The current tenor of the GOP is authoritarian and anti-intellectual (I sometime
>s think Newt Gingrich is determined to punish every intellectual, especially co
>llege teachers, for his failure to get tenure). This results in two related at
>titudes with extremely important ramifications for the arts. The GOP leadershi
>p is:
>
>1) indifferent to public education at all levels
The Republican platform is pro-school choice, and I can't think of anyone who
is more pro-education than William Bennett.
> and
>
>2) suspicious of, or overtly hostile to, the arts.
Because their constituents are - let's say you place a check box on the 1040
that read, "Do you want $10 of your income taxes to go toward funding Robert
Mapplethorpe." Hmm... I wonder what would happen.
>I don't have hard figures here, but I can speak anecdotally: although I had a
>little exposure to classical music through my family, I learned to love it and
>to want to make it my career through playing in public school orchestras. Virt
>ually everyone I know in the profession came to it that way. Even more importa
>ntly, though, almost everyone I know with an interest in classical music--but w
>ho didn't make it their profession--also came to it through participation in sc
>hool music programs, especially performing groups.
I don't play any instruments, and my education had nothing to do with my
affinity for classical music whatsoever. The basic music courses which I
had to take through elementary school emphasized basic music theory and
learning to sing properly, rather than appreciation. I was introduced to
classical music by my grandparents (both Republicans), and cultivated my yen
entirely independently. I don't see why so many people see schools as the
only place to cultivate a taste for art. Schools tend to do exactly the
_opposite_: by forcing it down young people's throats, with the teacher
foisting heavy-handed interpretations and criticisms onto art, as well as
choosing what is "good" art (in whose view?), and then making their students
abhor art by turning it into homework, analysis, and drudgery. I say, just
give the kids the _tools_ (reading, writing), then turn them loose to explore
whatever they want and form their own independent opinions without helpful
"guidance." They'll find what is right eventually (I know I did! 8-)
The current political state is not unconducive to classical music -
The mostly affluent politicians (Democrat and Republican) in Washington
and in all 50 states, who like doing "rich people things" such as going to
opera, ballet, and instrumental classical concerts, will not be opposed
to legislation that is pro-classical music. It's not a hot issue now
anyway. A pro-art platform will net you negligible votes - you have to
campaign on welfare, health care, etc. Classical music will not fall out
of favor no matter what political climes are extant. The very definition
of classical music is that it's strong enough to withstand the test of
time. It's made it this far, and will be here a long time coming. You
needn't worry about it going anywhere.
Matt
joseph louis rizzo
> constitutional <requirement> for federal support of the arts. I am perfectly
>willing to engage in reasonable, rational debate about the appropriateness of s
>uch funding. Nonetheless the right-wing posturing around the NEA is all out of
> proportion both to its actual expenditures (not even a blip on the screen in t
>he total federal budget) and the number of grants that ever been controversial
>(some vanishingly small fraction of 1%).
>
>One of the Pats (it doesn't matter which since they are interchangeable in all
>important aspects) said that his FIRST act, if elected president, would be to s
>hut down the NEA. This promise was greeted by distressingly enthusiastic appla
>use. This is not discussion, not debate; this is pandering and war-mongering (
>remember Pat Buchanan's pronouncement of a "cultural war?") which encourages ha
>tred of the intellectual and the artist. There are many government organs that
> spend vastly more money than the NEA in vastly less efficient ways, but
>you read about that, if at all, on the back pages. This kind of emotional, hat
>e-provoking rhetoric (which often plays fast and loose with the facts and figur
>es) is not accidental; this is policy. And it should be scary policy to everyo
>ne interested in the arts, whether or not they believe in public funding for th
>em.
>
Ok, I will respond to you with hesitation. If asked by people on the newsgroup
to keep this off- I am willing to move to email.
There is only one problem that you have here in your argument about the NEA.
If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it to exist,
then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
to be there.
Even though this policy may be damaging to the arts, if the patron is not
willing to give its support (in this case the government) there is nothing
the artists can do except find new patrons. This may be reprehensible, it
may even be evil- but that is the price one pays for being in a representative
democracy.
If you do not like this policy- run for office! It is the responsibility of
people in a democracy to change laws that are seen as wrong.
>
>The usual disclaimers apply; you know the drill. --MTS
--
=> J.L.Rizzo (jl...@ellis.uchicago.edu)
"men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest"
-Thucydides
Eric Schissel
wasn't even .opposed. except from the right, and won handily.
-eric schissel
--
1.The most common mistake of young thieves is stealing complimentary copies.
2.Read misc.activism.progressive. (Std disc).
es...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu Eric Schissel, at least once in a while.
Eric Schissel
the representative of the rich and powerful, but since they're a little
more openly so than the democratic party is, they throw different bones
to their non-rich and powerful constituents.
Carol McAlpine
offend people. It offends a lot of (very bitter, narrow-minded) people.
There is a strong anti-intellectual, populist strain in this country.
There's no single leader right now, but George Wallace was once the hero of
these people. Many of them despise classical music as plutocrat's music.
Carol McAlpine
Jeff Beer
joseph louis rizzo <jl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>There is only one problem that you have here in your argument about the NEA.
>If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it to exist,
>then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
>to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
>to be there.
No, when polled, about 60% of the people favor government funding of the arts.
That might not have meant the NEA specifically, but most people do favor
government funding of arts.
Now if it is some of those controverserial grants, it certainly wouldn't
be that. But those of all the tens of thousands of grants, only a
handful are like that.
Most NEA grants are for very B-flat type projects.
Jeff
Ryan M. Hare
<an argument discussing the anti-artistic and anti-intellectual nature of
the Republican party>
Consider:
-What if the family values people found out about the texts to the
following pieces:
Carmina Burana
Don Giovanni
Elektra
Salome
Wozzeck
Lulu
many others!
If Mapplethorpe's work is labelled as "pornographic," do you think those
pieces and many other are safe? What about the basic stories behind:
The Rite of Spring
The Miraculous Mandarin
Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun
Don Juan
?
-What would the Republican/reactionary religious right think about the
pieces by the following composers:
Aaron Copland, a homosexual
Tchaikovsky, a homosexual
Richard Strauss, an atheist who even wrote a piece inspired by the writing
of one of the most anti-Christian philosophers ever, Nietzsche.
Bela Bartok, an atheist
Stravinsky, who wrote music about a primitive human sacrifice and a young
man who is promiscous, a gambler, a wastrel, and unrepentant; who was
arrested for tampering govenment property (his arrangement of the Star
Spangled Banner, with its shocking seventh chords and unusual
voice leading)
Beethoven, who frquented brothels regularly
Schubert, who was a pedophile
Franz Liszt, who was an agnostic and a secular humanist
On and on!
If you think these composers are immune to such "moral" censorship, think
again! An example: a couple of years ago, when the first anti-homosexual
bills started appearing in Oregon, one of them basically stated that the
government could in no way support homosexuality. Opponents of the bill
pointed out that the bill's passage would be devasting in its potential for
censorship. Supporters of the bill denied this, saying that they merely
wanted to avoid "special" (as though equality were something "special" only
granted to an appointed few!) rights for homosexuals. The bill passed in
Springfield, Oregon, and the first thing the so-called Oregon Citizen's
Alliance (who initiated the bill) did was to ransack public libraries for
"offensive" books.
Many contemporary artists are slandered by the religious right for not
meeting the religious right's agenda for morality. Ever heard of the "Truth
About Rock" movement? The people who burn and attempt to label and/or
ban rock albums? Their opposition goes beyond the lyrics of the songs;
these people attack the musician's lifestyles, and hold them up as being
as reason for censorship (the product of such depravity, even if not
explicity representative of that depravity, can not be wholesome and
worthy for our youth, in fact it must be outright hazardous.) Art will
not be protected from such insidious attack. Classical composers,
musicians, and conductors are not more morally upright (by the religious
right's standards) than rock musicians. Classical music is very often not
more "moral" or "wholesome" than rock music.
I believe there will always be sufficient opposition to the religious
right to prevent the nightmare of their controlling government from ever
occurring. But, if it did, the results for the arts *would* be a
nightmare. Religion in power has always in history resulted in horrible
oppression, censorship, and witch hunts. McCarthyism is not dead.
Obviously, this post presents a much harsher view of the present
condition of society than perhaps is quite warranted, for the time being.
However, it is important for those who support the arts to not be
complacent about issues of censorship, and the fact that much censorship
is already in our midst.
Don't mark me as being a pessimistic, doom-sayer. In fact, I have a firm
belief in the ability of art and honor (not in a religious right sense,
but in an honest, tolerant sense) and intelligence to survive. But it
does seem clear that a low period for the arts is due. This may turn out
to be a good thing, because it may rouse many supporters of art out of
their complacency, and make them realize that arts absolutely require
considerable public support.
Ryan Hare
rh...@scs.unr.edu
David Pickering
bad for.. by Matthew Bon...@cae.wisc
> In article <170716F47S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>
MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisvi
> lle.edu writes:
> >I was amused by one suggestion, that of Copland's ever-popular
"Fanfare for the
>
> > Common Man." I feel fairly sure that Copland, a Jewish homosexual
of pronounc
>
> >ed leftist political tendencies, would have been appalled both by the
> >election resulsts and the attempt to appropriate his music.
>
> But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common
men (i.e.
> career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and replace them with
> common men.
Preposterous. The new Speaker, Newt Gingrich has been in Congress for
16 years. The new chairman of the Senate Defense Committee, Strom
Thurmond has been in Congress since about the time of Reconstruction.
About as many "career politicians" won their respective elections as
lost.
[Generalizations about the listening habits of Republicans vs Democrats
deleted since they are irrelevant to this particular forum]
> Republicans are
> against offensive _new_ art (explicit rap, porn), especially if the _living_
> artists are being subsidized by taxpayer monies. The only way instrumental
> classical music can be deemed offensive is the interpretation of its
meaning,
> and the only major detractor of classical I know of is Susan McClary,
> wacko liberal feminist musicologist extraordinaire, who sees Beethoven
> Symphonies and Bach fugues as depicting rape and violence.
You have obviously been boondoggled--hook, line and sinker-- by extreme
right wing zealots like Buchanan, Robertson, and Wildmon who would have
you believe the NEA does nothing but fund "homoerotic and blasphemous
art". The truth, as usual, has little to do with what The Pats or
Wildmon say. The overwhelming majority of NEA grants go museums,
orchestras, opera companies, dance companies, drama groups, and to
preservation of and education about regional folk art traditions, but
you'd never know this from listening to the rhetoric of the right.
Though the NEA's budget has never been huge, they've done a very good
job overall of spreading the arts to areas of the country that might
otherwise be shut out.
>
> >The current tenor of the GOP is authoritarian and anti-intellectual
(I sometime
>
> >s think Newt Gingrich is determined to punish every intellectual,
especially co
>
> >llege teachers, for his failure to get tenure). This results in two
related at
>
> >titudes with extremely important ramifications for the arts. The GOP
leadershi
>
> >p is:
> >
> >1) indifferent to public education at all levels
>
> The Republican platform is pro-school choice, and I can't think of anyone who
> is more pro-education than William Bennett.
>
> > and
> >
> >2) suspicious of, or overtly hostile to, the arts.
>
> Because their constituents are - let's say you place a check box on the 1040
> that read, "Do you want $10 of your income taxes to go toward funding Robert
> Mapplethorpe." Hmm... I wonder what would happen.
Damn little. Mapplethorpe died about ten years ago.
Dave
dp...@andrew.cmu.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are
equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to
see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
--George Washington
Chris Brewster
But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common
men (i.e. career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and
replace them with common men.
Yes, common men such as the millionaire surgeon who's a new senator from
Tennessee.
--
Chris Brewster Cray Research, Inc.
M. Connelly
: MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu writes:
: >of leadership--to be generally valid.
: Republicans consist of older people, who might have started out as starry-
: eyed "let's save the world!" Democrats but became increasingly closed-minded,
: opposed to change, and conservative over the years. ("Anyone under 30 who
: isn't liberal doesn't have a heart; anyone over 30 who isn't conservative
: doesn't have a brain.") Seniors like music from their generation, i.e.
: _classical_ and jazz. Young people (Democrats) hate their elders' music
: (classical, jazz), opting instead for music from their generation, i.e. rap,
Sweeping generalisations, my favorite.
: pop rock, heavy metal, alternative, classic rock, etc. Republicans are
: against offensive _new_ art (explicit rap, porn), especially if the _living_
The Russians found some of Shostakovich's work to be offensive and
repressed it. The nazis found Mahler to be offensive and repressed his
music. Am I supposed to be encouraged by the republican attitude toward
the arts?
: artists are being subsidized by taxpayer monies. The only way instrumental
: classical music can be deemed offensive is the interpretation of its meaning,
: and the only major detractor of classical I know of is Susan McClary,
: wacko liberal feminist musicologist extraordinaire, who sees Beethoven
: Symphonies and Bach fugues as depicting rape and violence.
(See above for examples of wacko conservatives finding offense in
classical music)
: >The current tenor of the GOP is authoritarian and anti-intellectual (I sometime
: >s think Newt Gingrich is determined to punish every intellectual, especially co
Why does it seem more appropriate to refer to Newt as "the current boy
soprano of the GOP?"
: >llege teachers, for his failure to get tenure). This results in two related at
: >titudes with extremely important ramifications for the arts. The GOP leadershi
: >p is:
: >
: >1) indifferent to public education at all levels
: The Republican platform is pro-school choice, and I can't think of anyone who
: is more pro-education than William Bennett.
Since when are the Democrats trying to stop you from sending your kid to
a private school if you can afford it?
:
: > and
: >
: >2) suspicious of, or overtly hostile to, the arts.
: Because their constituents are - let's say you place a check box on the 1040
Do you actually believe that a majority of people in this country would
claim to be "suspicious of, or hostile to the arts"? If you have heard
of specific surveys or opinion polls showing that people are opposed to
the arts in general, I would be curious to hear about it.
: that read, "Do you want $10 of your income taxes to go toward funding Robert
: Mapplethorpe." Hmm... I wonder what would happen.
Having ten less dollars go toward building up our military forces seems
like an opportunity I would welcome.
: >I don't have hard figures here, but I can speak anecdotally: although I had a
: >little exposure to classical music through my family, I learned to love it and
: >to want to make it my career through playing in public school orchestras. Virt
: >ually everyone I know in the profession came to it that way. Even more importa
: >ntly, though, almost everyone I know with an interest in classical music--but w
: >ho didn't make it their profession--also came to it through participation in sc
: >hool music programs, especially performing groups.
: I don't play any instruments, and my education had nothing to do with my
: affinity for classical music whatsoever. The basic music courses which I
: had to take through elementary school emphasized basic music theory and
: learning to sing properly, rather than appreciation. I was introduced to
Here you say that schooling doesn't teach appreciation. . . .
: classical music by my grandparents (both Republicans), and cultivated my yen
: entirely independently. I don't see why so many people see schools as the
: only place to cultivate a taste for art. Schools tend to do exactly the
: _opposite_: by forcing it down young people's throats, with the teacher
: foisting heavy-handed interpretations and criticisms onto art, as well as
: choosing what is "good" art (in whose view?), and then making their students
And wouldn't talking about what is "good" art fall under appreciation?
You seem to be contradicting yourself; do you see teaching
"appreciation" as a good or bad thing?
: abhor art by turning it into homework, analysis, and drudgery. I say, just
I am sorry that the schools you have encountered have had programs that
have given you such a negative impression. However, I think trying to
improve the classes would be a better solution than just abolishing
them. If schools had bad math classes, would you be saying that kids
shouldn't learn math? And even if all students may not want extensive
training in the arts, shouldn't it be an option for the kids who want
it? Isn't a music class just as valid (if not more) as home ec or shop?
: give the kids the _tools_ (reading, writing), then turn them loose to explore
Isn't the skill of being able to read music a _tool_? As well as basic
musical knowledge (such as being able to know what an instrument is from
hearing it)?
: whatever they want and form their own independent opinions without helpful
: "guidance." They'll find what is right eventually (I know I did! 8-)
I disagree with the idea of teaching kids that a particular piece,
composer, or genre is "good" music. However, I fail to see any harm in
presenting students with music that they might not have encountered
otherwise, and letting them form their own opinions of it.
: The current political state is not unconducive to classical music -
The question isn't about the music. It's about the funding that makes
its composition and performance possible.
: The mostly affluent politicians (Democrat and Republican) in Washington
: and in all 50 states, who like doing "rich people things" such as going to
: opera, ballet, and instrumental classical concerts, will not be opposed
: to legislation that is pro-classical music. It's not a hot issue now
Legislation that is pro-classical music? Even if you could pass
something catered to such a select group, how would you define
"classical" music? I can just imagine if it passed and some composer
used the funding to compose a piece that asked the performer to take off
all his clothes and rub a violin all over his naked body. Bye bye to
that legislation! As far as the NEA is concerned, thousands of projects
have been funded, and less than ten have received complaints about being
offensive (and many people who saw these works didn't take offense to
them. If the NEA goes down, as some republicans have tried to do, it
will mean less funding for groups across all aspects of the arts,
including classical music. The truth is, many groups performing
classical music rely on government funding, and if funding is decreased
too much or pulled completely, more groups will have to cease operating.
Henry Fogel would have a unique insight into this, being involved with
funding for the CSO.
: anyway. A pro-art platform will net you negligible votes - you have to
: campaign on welfare, health care, etc. Classical music will not fall out
: of favor no matter what political climes are extant. The very definition
: of classical music is that it's strong enough to withstand the test of
: time. It's made it this far, and will be here a long time coming. You
: needn't worry about it going anywhere.
The music isn't going anywhere. The fate of many of the groups
performing the music may unfortunately may be a different one.
Mike Connelly
: Matt
:
Steven Correll
Matthew Bonness <bon...@cae.wisc.edu> wrote:
>But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common men (i.e.
>career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and replace them with
>common men.
Here in California we may revel in being flaky, nutty, and far-out, but I
assure you that even in our wildest fantasies we do not regard Michael
Huffington (who has not conceded defeat) as an exemplar of the common man.
--
Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == s...@netcom.com
Steven Correll
joseph louis rizzo <jl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>If you do not like this policy- run for office! It is the responsibility of
>people in a democracy to change laws that are seen as wrong.
Short of running for office, isn't it reasonable to post arguments to
r.m.c seeking to convince the US public that the NEA should exist? You fail
to answer those arguments when you simply say that the majority disagrees.
I think one can make principled arguments against the NEA (for example,
one might oppose the NEA on the grounds that individual patrons are better
judges of artistic merit than NEA committees, or on the grounds that it
represents a transfer of money from the poor to the wealthy, or on the
grounds that there are higher priorities for spending tax dollars). My
own objection to Jesse Helms and his followers is that they are unprincipled:
I perceive that they would be happy to spend our common tax dollars on art,
provided they get to pick and choose artists who do not offend their version
of the status quo. They are "illiberal" in the old-fashioned sense of the
term: "I disagree with what you say, and therefore I will not defend to
the death your right to say it--in fact, I'll use my power over the public
purse to discourage you from saying it." That would be proper--though not
terribly open-minded--if Helms were spending his own money, but in fact he's
spending yours and mine, which obliges him to be even-handed rather than
censorious.
Roger Lustig
>Matthew Bonness writes:
> But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common
> men (i.e. career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and
> replace them with common men.
>Yes, common men such as the millionaire surgeon who's a new senator from
>Tennessee.
More to the point, the man who replaced Cuomo is a common puppet. Hardly
a man at all, and certainly not his own man. Also a career politician,
aside from his land-developing business, which he used his political clout
to advance.
Holding my nose,
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <170716F47S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu writes:
>>I was amused by one suggestion, that of Copland's ever-popular "Fanfare for the
>> Common Man." I feel fairly sure that Copland, a Jewish homosexual of pronounc
>>ed leftist political tendencies, would have been appalled both by the
>>election resulsts and the attempt to appropriate his music.
>But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common men (i.e.
>career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and replace them with
>common men.
a) Nonsense. Pataki's a politician too, and a puppet of third-term senator
Alphonse D;Amato.
b) The common man, yes. Woman? The USA Today exit polls showed that the
Republican sweep was based on massive support from white males, and
majorities in hardly any other constituency.
>>graph. Yes, I know the comments I make do not apply to all Republicans; they m
>>ay not even apply to most Republicans. I also know some Democrats guilty of th
>>e same (or at least some of the same) sins. However, since the putsch staged b
>>y the radical religious right and the nearly total adoption of their agenda, th
>>e comments below apply to enough Republicans--especially those in positions
>>of leadership--to be generally valid.
>Republicans consist of older people, who might have started out as starry-
>eyed "let's save the world!" Democrats but became increasingly closed-minded,
>opposed to change, and conservative over the years. ("Anyone under 30 who
Not so. Plenty of young republicans, esp. males.
>isn't liberal doesn't have a heart; anyone over 30 who isn't conservative
>doesn't have a brain.") Seniors like music from their generation, i.e.
>_classical_ and jazz.
About 2% of seniors are into jazz, I bet.
>Young people (Democrats)
where *do* you get these ideas?
>hate their elders' music
>(classical, jazz), opting instead for music from their generation, i.e. rap,
>pop rock, heavy metal, alternative, classic rock, etc. Republicans are
>against offensive _new_ art (explicit rap, porn), especially if the _living_
>artists are being subsidized by taxpayer monies.
How much rap gets subsidized? How much porn gets subsidized? What *are*
you talking about?
>The only way instrumental
>classical music can be deemed offensive is the interpretation of its meaning,
>and the only major detractor of classical I know of is Susan McClary,
>wacko liberal feminist musicologist extraordinaire, who sees Beethoven
>Symphonies and Bach fugues as depicting rape and violence.
Try reading what she writes. You've completely misrepresented what
she says.
a) She's not a "detractor of classical." She loves the stuff and
has devoted her life to it.
b) How do you know she's a liberal? I've never seen her political views.
c) She doesn't see Beethoven and Bach pieces doing that; she once used
"the rage of a frustrated rapist" as an analogy to one passage in a
discussion of a long piece. Nowhere does she describe them as "Depicting"
anything like that.
d) Could you point to something she's said or written that's "wacko"?
>>The current tenor of the GOP is authoritarian and anti-intellectual (I sometime
>>s think Newt Gingrich is determined to punish every intellectual, especially co
>>llege teachers, for his failure to get tenure). This results in two related at
>>titudes with extremely important ramifications for the arts. The GOP leadershi
>>p is:
>>1) indifferent to public education at all levels
>The Republican platform is pro-school choice, and I can't think of anyone who
>is more pro-education than William Bennett.
Unless you happen to want an education that doesn't conform to his ideals.
Whenever I saw ol' Book-o'-values campaigning for Ollie North, I wanted to
puke.
Also, do you really think that "pro-school-choice" doesn't work out
to the devastation of public education?
>> and
>>2) suspicious of, or overtly hostile to, the arts.
>Because their constituents are - let's say you place a check box on the 1040
>that read, "Do you want $10 of your income taxes to go toward funding Robert
>Mapplethorpe." Hmm... I wonder what would happen.
Well, the NEA's funding would increase, for one thing. It's under $200
million now; and since about 1% of their funding is for things that
anyone's complained about, it would only take a few check marks to
improve their position.
>>I don't have hard figures here, but I can speak anecdotally: although I had a
>>little exposure to classical music through my family, I learned to love it and
>>to want to make it my career through playing in public school orchestras. Virt
>>ually everyone I know in the profession came to it that way. Even more importa
>>ntly, though, almost everyone I know with an interest in classical music--but w
>>ho didn't make it their profession--also came to it through participation in sc
>>hool music programs, especially performing groups.
>I don't play any instruments, and my education had nothing to do with my
>affinity for classical music whatsoever.
You're in a minority.
>The basic music courses which I
>had to take through elementary school emphasized basic music theory and
>learning to sing properly, rather than appreciation.
That's how people generally learn to appreciate music--by making it.
>I was introduced to
>classical music by my grandparents (both Republicans), and cultivated my yen
>entirely independently. I don't see why so many people see schools as the
>only place to cultivate a taste for art. Schools tend to do exactly the
>_opposite_: by forcing it down young people's throats, with the teacher
>foisting heavy-handed interpretations and criticisms onto art, as well as
>choosing what is "good" art (in whose view?), and then making their students
>abhor art by turning it into homework, analysis, and drudgery. I say, just
Then why did it work so well? And what makes you say this stuff about
heavy-handed interpretations? Might as well argue against the teaching
of history, at that rate.
>give the kids the _tools_ (reading, writing), then turn them loose to explore
>whatever they want and form their own independent opinions without helpful
>"guidance." They'll find what is right eventually (I know I did! 8-)
Exactly. You were taught music in school, and could learn more about it
as a result. Music education in the schools doesn't even reach as far
as what you had anymore.
>The current political state is not unconducive to classical music -
>The mostly affluent politicians (Democrat and Republican) in Washington
>and in all 50 states, who like doing "rich people things" such as going to
>opera, ballet, and instrumental classical concerts, will not be opposed
>to legislation that is pro-classical music.
How about the "common men" who are supposedly flooding DC all of a sudden?
And how will the funding come, if not through the NEA? Will there be
a Congressional committee to hand the money out directly, making
Congressional decisions as to what music is right and good?
Will they stop at Brahms? Censor Wagner? Ban Schoenberg?
>It's not a hot issue now
>anyway. A pro-art platform will net you negligible votes - you have to
>campaign on welfare, health care, etc. Classical music will not fall out
>of favor no matter what political climes are extant.
Except that it *did* over the last 25 years, as school music programs
were gutted.
>The very definition
>of classical music is that it's strong enough to withstand the test of
>time.
Nonsense. Lots of "classical" music has done no such thing--it was
revived decades or centuries after it fell into obscurity. Bach
and Vivaldi and Monteverdi and Schuetz and Josquin and Dufay are
good examples. The definition is far more along the lines of
"Old music that suits our tastes today".
Things that were considered sure-fire "classics" 50 years ago
aren't played at all anymore. "Classical" music generally
means European music of a certain era and certain genres.
>It's made it this far, and will be here a long time coming. You
Easy to say. How will it stay, if people don't play it?
>needn't worry about it going anywhere.
Except down the drain. We're far more separated from what
we call "classical" music than we were even a generation ago;
the last of the "great composers" died, and traditions of
performance, interpretation, and listening have all changed
dramatically--or disappeared.
Roger
Philip F. Wight
First of all, I have a name - I'm Phil Wight. Pleased to know you, MTS.
I thoroughly disagree with your conclusions and I lament over the
ultra-liberal view that you espouse.
The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
the NEA.
Also, your contention that Republicans are anti-education is rediculous.
I have no statistics at hand, but I would venture a guess that the
typical Republican is as well educated as the typical Democrat. The
biggest difference, though, is that the typical Republican got out of the
academic world and made his place in the real world, while those without
the courage to do this held back and remained in the academic "womb",
sheltered from the realities of the real world.
To paraphrase your disclaimer, I know that not all academics fit this
mold: many have been successfull in "outside" life and have returned to
teach from their experience. I cheer those people: they know what they
are talking about, far more than those who never entered the "real" world.
When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
high percentage of Republicans.
Therefore, I don't think your worries about Republicans doing a dump on
art and education to be valid.
Cheers,
Phil
--
Philip F. Wight <pwi...@rahul.net>
Josh Klein
> First of all, I have a name - I'm Phil Wight. Pleased to know you, MTS.
Hello Phil Wright. I'm a little concerned by your messages, and I think
that we should go over a short reality check today...
[RABID DENUNCIATION OF LIBERALISM IN GENERAL DELETED]
> The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
> all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
> and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
> was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
> can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
> shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
> in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
> the NEA.
You know, you may be right that the Mapplethorpe exhibit was not worth
grant it was given. On the other hand, it was really an awfully small
(negligible?) part of the NEA budget, and a _really_ small part of the
total government budget. One fact of political life is that we all end
up supporting with our tax dollars various expressions which we disagree
with. (When I think of all the Reagan speechwriters whose taxes were
payed by the 40+ percent of us who voted against him in 1984, it just
makes me feel ill. There's also a little proposal floating around in
Republican circles right now which might make this country's athiests
subsidize daily prayer in public schools.) There has been a movement
in this country to completely defund the arts, because of the tiny proportion
of arts-spending that goes to programs some people find objectionable.
It does not, then, seem too unreasonable to expect that the Republican
victory (which has catapulted such open-minded gentlemen as Jesse Helms
and Strom Thurmond, former pro-segregation presidential candidate into
leadership positions) may actually put into practise some of the ideas
they have been advocating for the last five years.
> Also, your contention that Republicans are anti-education is rediculous.
> I have no statistics at hand, but I would venture a guess that the
> typical Republican is as well educated as the typical Democrat. The
> biggest difference, though, is that the typical Republican got out of the
> academic world and made his place in the real world, while those without
> the courage to do this held back and remained in the academic "womb",
> sheltered from the realities of the real world.
> To paraphrase your disclaimer, I know that not all academics fit this
> mold: many have been successfull in "outside" life and have returned to
> teach from their experience. I cheer those people: they know what they
> are talking about, far more than those who never entered the "real" world.
1) "pro-education" and "anti-education" have different meanings than
"educated" and "uneducated," right? Presumably, a person who is
completely illiterate (uneducated) could still esteem education
quite highly, and advocate public policies which would support
and improve education. (i.e. he would be "pro-education".) I
assume that the converse is possible as well.
2) In order to convince me that a Republican inhabitant of "the real
world" (whatever that means) "knows what [he is] talking about far
more than those who never entered the 'real world,'" you'll first
have to tell me what, exactly, it is that these people ARE talking
about. A person who's spent her whole life studying ancient Summarian
texts and talks about ancient Summarian texts knows quite well what
she is talking about. I suppose that you mean to say that people who
have worked outside academia know more about "real world" (your term)
problems than those who have not. But I am not particularly
convinced of this. People who work in the real world do _not_
nessecerily have a broad range of experiences -- often they are
experienced only in one particular field. Furthermore, policy issues
often need the sort of insight which comes from serious reflection,
which, some might say, a university setting provides more opportunity
for.
> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
> high percentage of Republicans.
This has little bearing on the issue we were discussing. These people who
generously send their checks in to public radio stations and local
symphonies may still have elected representatives in Congress who intend
to slash government spending.
> Cheers,
> Phil
-Josh
--
Josh Klein
Amherst College
Milo Cooper
Josh Klein <jak...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>Philip F. Wight (pwi...@rahul.net) wrote:
>> First of all, I have a name - I'm Phil Wight. Pleased to know you, MTS.
>
>Hello Phil Wright. I'm a little concerned by your messages, and I think
>that we should go over a short reality check today...
You may dispense with the pleasantries, commander. I'm here
to put you back on schedule.
I write in support of Phil Wright.
>[RABID DENUNCIATION OF LIBERALISM IN GENERAL DELETED]
>
>> The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
>> all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
>> and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
>> was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
>> can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
>> shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
>> in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
>> the NEA.
>
>You know, you may be right that the Mapplethorpe exhibit was not worth
>grant it was given. On the other hand, it was really an awfully small
>(negligible?) part of the NEA budget, and a _really_ small part of the
>total government budget. One fact of political life is that we all end
>up supporting with our tax dollars various expressions which we disagree
>with. (When I think of all the Reagan speechwriters whose taxes were
>payed by the 40+ percent of us who voted against him in 1984, it just
>makes me feel ill. There's also a little proposal floating around in
>Republican circles right now which might make this country's athiests
>subsidize daily prayer in public schools.) There has been a movement
>in this country to completely defund the arts, because of the tiny proportion
>of arts-spending that goes to programs some people find objectionable.
The retraction of governement funding of art is an is-
sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
creations. The ethic is very simple: the government should not
provide financial support to an artist, whether s/he is favored by
or out of favor with taxpayers. People should be free to give
finance to whatever specific artwork they wish to promote. They
should not be made to pay the governement to determine what is
worthwhile. Period.
>It does not, then, seem too unreasonable to expect that the Republican
>victory (which has catapulted such open-minded gentlemen as Jesse Helms
>and Strom Thurmond, former pro-segregation presidential candidate into
>leadership positions) may actually put into practise some of the ideas
>they have been advocating for the last five years.
Such as...? You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid,
as you request of Mr. Wright in the following excerpt; I don't
care to grope for your arguments.
>...
>2) In order to convince me that a Republican inhabitant of "the real
> world" (whatever that means) "knows what [he is] talking about far
> more than those who never entered the 'real world,'" you'll first
> have to tell me what, exactly, it is that these people ARE talking
> about. A person who's spent her whole life studying ancient Summarian
> texts and talks about ancient Summarian texts knows quite well what
> she is talking about. I suppose that you mean to say that people who
> have worked outside academia know more about "real world" (your term)
> problems than those who have not. But I am not particularly
> convinced of this. People who work in the real world do _not_
> nessecerily have a broad range of experiences -- often they are
> experienced only in one particular field. Furthermore, policy issues
> often need the sort of insight which comes from serious reflection,
> which, some might say, a university setting provides more opportunity
> for.
There is no utter substitute for experience, and there
are enough experienced individuals about that university elit-
ists are superfluous. The only reason that one attends an in-
stitution of learning rather than electing for the greater
teacher of experience is that the latter is usually impracti-
cal. What sane person prefers the various degrees of inexper-
ience had by one man over the single firm grasps of disciplines
had by others? For the attainment of professional status, would
you rather be taught by someone who, having read several relative
volumes and having ruminated in solitude for many a day on your
field of interest, was possessed of much vicarious knowledge, or
would you rather be informed by an actual, accredited, working
professional? You can take up a bag full of immature fruits,
not knowing what you will get but expecting nothing appreciable,
or you can take up many bags, each of which contains a single
ripe, plump, and tasty item. While the former course has its
merits -- one could get lucky and have much good food in fewer
sacks, or one could happen upon a most rare or unique fruit --
it is ultimately the less reliable of the two methods toward an
end of satisfaction, and as such, should be utilized for experi-
ment, not everyday practice. One must first go with what is
most certain. That is the concept of Republicanism which Demo-
crats never fail to miss. Insight is marvelous, but it must
play second violin to the lessons of history. And history is
experience.
>> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
>> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
>> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
>> high percentage of Republicans.
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>
>This has little bearing on the issue we were discussing. These people who
>generously send their checks in to public radio stations and local
>symphonies may still have elected representatives in Congress who intend
>to slash government spending.
>Josh Klein
>Amherst College
It seems to me that such individuals have opted to de-
cide for themselves what they will advance. Works for me. The
goverment certainly doesn't comprise omniscient gods. Oh, how
liberals would rant if all of the art that the government sup-
ports were of a religious bent.
__m d c__
|1 9 9 4| Milo D. Cooper (mdco...@crash.cts.com)
~~~~~~~~~
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
> all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
> and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
> was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
> can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
> shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
> in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
> the NEA.
I don't think that you can speak for the majority in this case, or that your
standard of what is art should be universally applied. Some public funding
for the arts is desirable, perhaps necessary, in a free society; it is very
unfortunate that a tiny selection of works has been singled out in a misleading
way. Having said that, I believe that the taxpayer has the ultimate authority
to determine how tax money is spent. We would like the taxpayer to be informed
and "enlightened," but it is her/his money in any case.
>
> Also, your contention that Republicans are anti-education is rediculous.
> I have no statistics at hand, but I would venture a guess that the
> typical Republican is as well educated as the typical Democrat. The
> biggest difference, though, is that the typical Republican got out of the
> academic world and made his place in the real world, while those without
> the courage to do this held back and remained in the academic "womb",
> sheltered from the realities of the real world.
>
Gulp. Academia is part of the real world, and there are plenty of us
Republicans in academic positions.
> To paraphrase your disclaimer, I know that not all academics fit this
> mold: many have been successfull in "outside" life and have returned to
> teach from their experience. I cheer those people: they know what they
> are talking about, far more than those who never entered the "real" world.
Whatever sympathy there might have been for your argument probably just
evaporated.
I hope that someday, somehow, you'll be liberated from the prejudices that
led you to write this.
> [...]
> Phil
> --
> Philip F. Wight <pwi...@rahul.net>
Ray
David Pickering
bad for.. by "Philip F. Wight"@rahul.
>
> First of all, I have a name - I'm Phil Wight. Pleased to know you, MTS.
>
> I thoroughly disagree with your conclusions and I lament over the
> ultra-liberal view that you espouse.
>
> The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
> all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
> and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
> was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
> can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
> shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
> in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
> the NEA.
A few facts about "Piss Christ" since it's so hard to see through the
distortions of the extreme right wing's well funded propaganda machine.
Andres Serrano did not receive a grant for this work, it was a part of a
large exhibition of works by numerous photographers which had been
touring the country. The whole to-do got started because one person
sent an indignant letter to Donald Wildmon of the "American Family
Association" after viewing the work at a gallery in Winston-Salem.
Wildmon presented this one photograph as being representational of the
entire exhibit and of NEA-funded art in general as a way to bring in
more donations from his paranoid followers.
The irony is that "Piss Christ" is a representation of the misuse and
abuse of religion, though IMHO, a rather heavy-handed representation.
>
> Also, your contention that Republicans are anti-education is rediculous.
> I have no statistics at hand, but I would venture a guess that the
> typical Republican is as well educated as the typical Democrat. The
> biggest difference, though, is that the typical Republican got out of the
> academic world and made his place in the real world, while those without
> the courage to do this held back and remained in the academic "womb",
> sheltered from the realities of the real world.
>
> To paraphrase your disclaimer, I know that not all academics fit this
> mold: many have been successfull in "outside" life and have returned to
> teach from their experience. I cheer those people: they know what they
> are talking about, far more than those who never entered the "real" world.
>
> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
> high percentage of Republicans.
>
> Therefore, I don't think your worries about Republicans doing a dump on
> art and education to be valid.
Philip F. Wight
David Pickering (dp...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: As Mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
: those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are
: equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to
: see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
: --George Washington
---------------------
Dave - if you believe that the word "liberality" means the same thing
today that it did in the time of "the George", I have a bridge in New York
City I would like to talk you about purhasing. :-)
Cheers,
MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
posting to a news group. The discussion has been much further-reaching
than I had ever imagined. I am pleased that most of it was thoughtful
and amicable.
I have not responded myself up to now for a couple of reasons. 1)
I just wanted to see how far it would go without me and 2)
just about every time I felt I had to say something in response
to a comment, someone else would jump in and say almost exactly
what I was going to say.
I would like to respond briefly to a few comments, though.
One person who responded privately accused me of "demonizing" the
right (and it seems that several others, although not using the
same word, were making essentially the same accusation). These
people seem to have missed the disclaimers I was so careful to
include. Further, as a Democract, as a liberal, as a non-Christian,
as an artist, and as a college professor I (not me personally, but
you know what I mean) have been attacked as a traitor, pornographer,
corrupter of youth, baby-killer, you name it. And these attacks
have not been made in carefully modulated phrases which are
read only by a small number of people who are interested in
classical music. No...these attacks are made daily in the
national media by people whose every word is heard or read
instantly by millions of people. The notion that I am demonizing
them is simply laughable.
Another complaint is that I am "generalizing" about the right or about
the Republican Party. Well, of course I am. Of what possible
good would a political party be if its tenets were so vague that
you couldn't generalize about them? That being said, it is important
not to overdo it, and I tried hard not to over-generalize/simplify
a complex argument in a relatively short (for me at any rate) essay.
Perhaps I failed, but it was not through lack of trying.
The whole NEA fray always carries problems with it. My take is
that I believe that is perfectly appropriate, in a liberal
democracy, for the government to spend modest sums promoting the
arts (and believe me they are modest sums--the last figure I saw
was about $0.37 per year per taxpayer). Yes, there will always
be problems about what gets sponsored, and what doesn't, but so
what? There are people out there who disagree with this position.
Fine--I can accept that and I am willing, as I said, to engage
in reasonable debate. My complaint is that the way the debate
is carried on now: it is almost entirely defined by the radical
right. They distort facts and figures, sometimes simply lie outright,
and give a very false picture of what the NEA is all about and
what it sponsors. And I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but the people
engaging in this distortion are mostly Republicans--Helms, Gingrich,
the two Pats, Falwell. If they want to debate govt. funding for the
arts, fine, but let them get their facts and figures straight
and argue from principle. I cannot listen to, say Jesse Helms or
Pat Buchanan talk about the NEA, and not see a sinister ulterior
motive--their talk is too emotional, too distorted, too full of
falsehood for me to take it as principled discourse and not as
what I think it is, an attack on the arts and artists in general.
Can I absolutely prove that? No. Do I think everyone who opposes
government funding for the arts has the same evil designs? Of
course not.
Finally, despite my careful disclaimers, many people apparently
thought my characterizations of the current leadership of the GOP
were aimed directly at them, personally. I know that there are
many upstanding, principled Republicans who have a sense of
social responsibility and can be counted on to support the arts,
charities, etc. etc. (Sadly, I think they are a diminishing, although
not a dying, breed.) I am related to many such Republicans (in
my immediate family I am virtually the only Democrat) and "many of
my best friends" are such Republicans. BUT...in my opinion, these
Republicans are NOT the ones setting the agenda for the party, which
has, again in my opinion, been kidnapped by radical religious right.
Were more people like most of the GOP respondents to my original posting
running things in the party, I would be a lot more comfortable.
However, they are not and the "gang of five" mentioned above is.
And I continue to believe that their policies are going to prove
to be anti-art and anti-artist. I would love to be proved wrong.
Thanks for listening. MTS
Chris Brewster
b) The common man, yes. Woman? The USA Today exit polls showed
that the Republican sweep was based on massive support from white
males, and majorities in hardly any other constituency.
Here's what irritates me about this election: *WHY* didn't other people
vote in greater numbers? If women, minorities, people needing health
care, and others who dislike Republican policies won't vote, they
deserve Newt. I just wish the success of policies I favor weren't so
dependent on these non-voters.
James Kahn
>> The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
>> all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
>> and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
>> was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
>> can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
>> shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
>> in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
>> the NEA.
>I don't think that you can speak for the majority in this case, or that your
>standard of what is art should be universally applied. Some public funding
>for the arts is desirable, perhaps necessary, in a free society;....
Why? Though I'm a bigger than average fan of "the arts", and therefore
probably benefit from such subsidies, I see no compelling reason for them.
(for the subsidies, that is, not the arts).
The only kind of subsidy for which I could see a justification would be
arts education in elementary and secondary schools. This follows
from all the standard justifications of subsidizing education in general.
It would also be a sort of "demand-side" stimulus to the arts industry.
It's the best solution in the long-run to the problem of how
to sustain artistic creativity in a society that otherwise slides
toward Madonna and comic books. To some extent it avoids the need
to pick out "art" the way the NEA has to, since there is broader
agreement on what art should be taught than there is on what should
be produced.
--Jim
--Jim
--
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu |
ka...@finance.wharton.upenn.edu |
James Alexander Chokey
there, since this no longer pertains directly to classical music.]
In article <3aorl9$8...@amhux3.amherst.edu>,
Josh Klein <jak...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>Philip F. Wight (pwi...@rahul.net) wrote:
>
>[RABID DENUNCIATION OF LIBERALISM IN GENERAL DELETED]
>
>> The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
>> all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
>> and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art. The "pissChrist"
>> was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
>> can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
>> shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
>> in its tracks. THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
>> the NEA.
>
>You know, you may be right that the Mapplethorpe exhibit was not worth
>grant it was given. On the other hand, it was really an awfully small
>(negligible?) part of the NEA budget,
"PissChrist" wasn't by Mapplethorpe. (Sorry, I forget who it
*was* by-- does anyone on r.a.f. remember?) In any case, your main
point is correct-- a *very* small portion (probably less than 1%) of
the NEA grant budget goes out to artists whose work is in any way
controversial. Most NEA money goes to support community orchestres,
dance troupes, theatre companies, and museums. It often turns up
in places that folks like Jesse Helms and Orin Hatch are completely
unaware of. Go to the Exporatorium in San Francisco, or the Franklin
Insitute in Philadelphia, or any of the other "hands-on" science museums
in the U.S. Many of these exhibits were built with NEA grants. Using
"PissChrist" as a reason for getting rid of the NEA is like using Tailhook
as a justification for abolishing the Navy.
-- Jim C.
==========================================================================
| James A. Chokey jch...@leland.stanford.edu |
| |
| Alas! Coquettes are but too rare. |
| -- Disraeli |
==========================================================================
Roger Lustig
>To MTS (is that your initials?)
>First of all, I have a name - I'm Phil Wight. Pleased to know you, MTS.
>I thoroughly disagree with your conclusions and I lament over the
>ultra-liberal view that you espouse.
>The majority of us, the great unwashed across this country that support
>all these programs with our hard-earned tax dollars, have been appalled
>and shocked at what the NEA has deemed worthwhile art.
Nonsense. The majority didn't know about it at all until it was
sensationalized and ripped out of context.
>The "pissChrist"
>was the straw that broke the majority camel's back. To think that anyone
>can do anything, no matter how outrageous, and just because it is
>shocking, call it art - this is reprehensible and deserves to be stopped
>in its tracks.
How about if they make art? Lots of people have seen that photo and
have found it very moving, much like the other photographs in the
exhibition. Serrano is a devout Catholic and a fine photographer;
what's wrong with his pictures?
Also, just what kind of censorship do you propose?
>THAT is why the mass of people in this country are down on
>the NEA.
Now, why are they so misinformed about it? Could it be because
Jesse Helms has told so many lies about it?
>Also, your contention that Republicans are anti-education is rediculous.
Democrats support spelling. 8-)
It's hardly as ridiculous as some of the things Newt Gingrich says,
e.g., that society was to blame for the Smith killings, or that
"homosexuality is an orientation the way alcoholism is an orientation."
>I have no statistics at hand, but I would venture a guess that the
>typical Republican is as well educated as the typical Democrat. The
Actually, you're wrong by a bit. But no matter. What relevance does
that have to the question?
>biggest difference, though, is that the typical Republican got out of the
>academic world and made his place in the real world, while those without
>the courage to do this held back and remained in the academic "womb",
More hooey. Most Democrats and most Republicans never faced that
choice. And Newt Gingrich only went into politics because he didn't
get tenure.
>sheltered from the realities of the real world.
Nice try. CLaiming that only your party has a grip on reality
is cheap nonsense, and pretty anti-democratic with a small D.
What ever happened to a political system where one could respect
one's opponents, instead of accusing them of ignorance, disloyalty,
or worse?
>To paraphrase your disclaimer, I know that not all academics fit this
>mold: many have been successfull in "outside" life and have returned to
>teach from their experience. I cheer those people: they know what they
>are talking about, far more than those who never entered the "real" world.
Some would say that of career Congressmen like Gingrich. His grip on
reality is demonstrated by his bizarre statements.
>When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
>credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
>support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
>high percentage of Republicans.
Stop suspecting and pony up some figures. You've been wrong so far.
>Therefore, I don't think your worries about Republicans doing a dump on
>art and education to be valid.
Except that their *stated goals* call for just that.
Roger
Thomas J. Trebisky
joseph louis rizzo <jl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it (the NEA)
>to exist,
>then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
>to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
>to be there.
Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
have received NEA funding (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
over some of that as well).
So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
What is this silly discussion doing in r.m.c anyway?
--
Tom Trebisky Steward Observatory
ttre...@as.arizona.edu University of Arizona
(602) 621-5135 Tucson, Arizona 85721
Roger Lustig
>In article <3aorl9$8...@amhux3.amherst.edu>,
>Josh Klein <jak...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>>You know, you may be right that the Mapplethorpe exhibit was not worth
>>grant it was given. On the other hand, it was really an awfully small
>>(negligible?) part of the NEA budget, and a _really_ small part of the
>>total government budget. One fact of political life is that we all end
>>up supporting with our tax dollars various expressions which we disagree
>>with. (When I think of all the Reagan speechwriters whose taxes were
>>payed by the 40+ percent of us who voted against him in 1984, it just
>>makes me feel ill. There's also a little proposal floating around in
>>Republican circles right now which might make this country's athiests
>>subsidize daily prayer in public schools.) There has been a movement
>>in this country to completely defund the arts, because of the tiny proportion
>>of arts-spending that goes to programs some people find objectionable.
> The retraction of governement funding of art is an is-
>sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
>creations.
Then why haven't the NEA's detractors said so? They say the opposite:
punish the NEA for choosing the wrong art. That's what Helms, Dannemeyer,
and the rest have said. See the Congressional Record.
>The ethic is very simple: the government should not
>provide financial support to an artist, whether s/he is favored by
>or out of favor with taxpayers. People should be free to give
>finance to whatever specific artwork they wish to promote. They
>should not be made to pay the governement to determine what is
>worthwhile. Period.
Does that mean we should fire all the composers, painters, and novelists
at the universities, too?
>>It does not, then, seem too unreasonable to expect that the Republican
>>victory (which has catapulted such open-minded gentlemen as Jesse Helms
>>and Strom Thurmond, former pro-segregation presidential candidate into
>>leadership positions) may actually put into practise some of the ideas
>>they have been advocating for the last five years.
> Such as...? You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid,
>as you request of Mr. Wright in the following excerpt; I don't
>care to grope for your arguments.
"Homosexuality is an orientation the way alcoholism is an orientation."
-- Newt Gingrich
>>2) In order to convince me that a Republican inhabitant of "the real
>> world" (whatever that means) "knows what [he is] talking about far
>> more than those who never entered the 'real world,'" you'll first
>> have to tell me what, exactly, it is that these people ARE talking
>> about. A person who's spent her whole life studying ancient Summarian
>> texts and talks about ancient Summarian texts knows quite well what
>> she is talking about. I suppose that you mean to say that people who
>> have worked outside academia know more about "real world" (your term)
>> problems than those who have not. But I am not particularly
>> convinced of this. People who work in the real world do _not_
>> nessecerily have a broad range of experiences -- often they are
>> experienced only in one particular field. Furthermore, policy issues
>> often need the sort of insight which comes from serious reflection,
>> which, some might say, a university setting provides more opportunity
>> for.
> There is no utter substitute for experience, and there
>are enough experienced individuals about that university elit-
>ists are superfluous.
In other words, expertise *disqualifies* one from discussion? How odd.
PS: what did Gingrich do before he ran for congress?
>The only reason that one attends an in-
>stitution of learning rather than electing for the greater
>teacher of experience is that the latter is usually impracti-
>cal.
Right, as though *any* amount of street learning would teach one
particle physics.
>What sane person prefers the various degrees of inexper-
>ience had by one man over the single firm grasps of disciplines
>had by others? For the attainment of professional status, would
>you rather be taught by someone who, having read several relative
>volumes and having ruminated in solitude for many a day on your
>field of interest, was possessed of much vicarious knowledge, or
>would you rather be informed by an actual, accredited, working
>professional? You can take up a bag full of immature fruits,
>not knowing what you will get but expecting nothing appreciable,
>or you can take up many bags, each of which contains a single
>ripe, plump, and tasty item. While the former course has its
>merits -- one could get lucky and have much good food in fewer
>sacks, or one could happen upon a most rare or unique fruit --
>it is ultimately the less reliable of the two methods toward an
>end of satisfaction, and as such, should be utilized for experi-
>ment, not everyday practice. One must first go with what is
>most certain. That is the concept of Republicanism which Demo-
>crats never fail to miss.
Actually, it sounds more like Mao to me. But no matter--it's
still prfoundly anti-intellectual, and completely full of shit
to boot; just what is this "end of satisfaction," and why do you
suppose that there's one approqch that works best in all cases?
>Insight is marvelous, but it must
>play second violin to the lessons of history. And history is
>experience.
But *knowledge* of history is knowledge. And insight. Historical
learning without insight is nothing at all/
>>> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
>>> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
>>> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
>>> high percentage of Republicans.
>>This has little bearing on the issue we were discussing. These people who
>>generously send their checks in to public radio stations and local
>>symphonies may still have elected representatives in Congress who intend
>>to slash government spending.
> It seems to me that such individuals have opted to de-
>cide for themselves what they will advance. Works for me. The
>goverment certainly doesn't comprise omniscient gods. Oh, how
But you seem to be, because you realize that nobody really needs all
that book-larnin.
>liberals would rant if all of the art that the government sup-
>ports were of a religious bent.
You mean, like Andres Serrano? A devout Catholic, that man, and it
shows in his work. FYI, many NEA-funded projects have a religious
bent, starting with all the choral works...
Roger
Charles W Haxthausen
The amount of money per capita is miniscule. The entire
NEA budget for Museum Programs (that funded Mapplethorpe) was $25
million, about 10 cents per person. The entire NEA budget, at ca. $175
million, costs each taxpayer about 70 cents a year. In 1988, the last
year for which I have figures, the total outlay of the NEA and all 50
state art councils was $420 million, or about $1.50 per person, about
the cost of a Big Mac. But it has nevertheless delivered a lot of bang
for the buck for demagogues.
Second point: I suspect that Jessie Helms secretly LOVES the NEA, or
at least he will learn to love it.
Is the radical right, which is more concerned about "social (read
cultural) issues" than the economy, going to deprive itself of an
opportunity for regulating culture? (It's the same with term limits:
now that they have a majority, the issue will probably seem a lot less
urgent!)
Mark Haxthausen
Rob Holzel
: In article <3a9gdu$m...@news.bu.edu>, jsch...@bu.edu (james schmidt) writes:
: > A Theme for the Republican Victory? --
: > This is easy. Shostakovich 7th Sym, first movement (the Nazi invader theme,
: > so harmless and charming at first, so sinister by the end; perhaps Speaker
: > Gingrich can have it played when he enters rooms)
: >
: Are you nuts? Since when is Gingrich associated with "harmless and charming"?
: We'll see in two years whether the end is "sinister," or whether the change
: of direction will be to the nation's benefit. I'm betting on the latter, and
: hence Shostakovich 10 might be closer to my choice---optimistism breaks
: through.
: Ray Ch.
I think the Shostakovich Seventh is the best musical charactization
to be suggested so far. How happy the voters were to place the Republicans
in charge! How surprised they'll be when the next incarnation of the
House Unamerican Activities committee is first called to order....
James Alexander Chokey
Thomas J. Trebisky <t...@canopus.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
The basic reason for the existence of the NEA can be found in
two assumptions-- 1) that market forces do not, in themselves, encourage
the production of aesthetically/intellectually interesting works of art
or performances and 2) that a vibrant and diverse artistic life is important
for and has an ameliorative effect on the national community as a whole.
It's the same reason that the government funds the military, education,
and a whole host of other "goods" whose value cannot easily be quantified--
although on a *much* smaller scale. They are public goods that would not/
might not exist
>If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it fall. I guess I am just
>an unashamed capitalist after all.
Would you say the same thing about the military or about education,
or about retirement funding (i.e. Social Security), all of which the
government spends *thousands* of times more money than on the NEA?
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> I have certainly enjoyed the discussion prompted by my first-ever
> posting to a news group. The discussion has been much further-reaching
> than I had ever imagined. I am pleased that most of it was thoughtful
>
> I would like to respond briefly to a few comments, though.
> One person who responded privately accused me of "demonizing" the
> right (and it seems that several others, although not using the
> same word, were making essentially the same accusation). These
> people seem to have missed the disclaimers I was so careful to
> include.
I was the one who made that"private accusation." I very carefully read and
accepted your disclaimers; nonetheless, it was my honest believe that many
of your statements were based on mistaken notions (I might have used different
words in privete). In this present followup, you are being much more careful
about whom you are implicating, and my previous objections do not apply.
Further, as a Democract, as a liberal, as a non-Christian,
> as an artist, and as a college professor I (not me personally, but
> you know what I mean) have been attacked as a traitor, pornographer,
> corrupter of youth, baby-killer, you name it. And these attacks
> have not been made in carefully modulated phrases which are
> read only by a small number of people who are interested in
> classical music. No...these attacks are made daily in the
> national media by people whose every word is heard or read
> instantly by millions of people. The notion that I am demonizing
> them is simply laughable.
I truly regret the attacks which you describe. As for your post,
It was my very clear sense that I was included among those you were
demonizing.
>
> Another complaint is that I am "generalizing" about the right or about
> the Republican Party. Well, of course I am. Of what possible
> good would a political party be if its tenets were so vague that
> you couldn't generalize about them? That being said, it is important
> not to overdo it, and I tried hard not to over-generalize/simplify
> a complex argument in a relatively short (for me at any rate) essay.
> Perhaps I failed, but it was not through lack of trying.
Understood---which is probably why you were taken seriously. My accusation
of generalizing had to do wit words (pardon me if I choose words that you
did not use in your original post, as I do not have a copy) such as "anti-
intellectual," "anti-artist," "anti-education," and "intolerant"---none of
which have to do with the Republican ideology. [I can spell that out at
a more appropriate time.]
There are very legitimate concerns which have to be faced in the government
funding of arts and education Opposition to such funding can be based
on legitimate fiscal or constitutional grounds---labeling such opposition
as "anti-" this or that is unfair.
>
> The whole NEA fray always carries problems with it. My take is
> that I believe that is perfectly appropriate, in a liberal
> democracy, for the government to spend modest sums promoting the
> arts (and believe me they are modest sums--the last figure I saw
> was about $0.37 per year per taxpayer). Yes, there will always
> be problems about what gets sponsored, and what doesn't, but so
> what? There are people out there who disagree with this position.
> Fine--I can accept that and I am willing, as I said, to engage
> in reasonable debate. My complaint is that the way the debate
> is carried on now: it is almost entirely defined by the radical
> right. They distort facts and figures, sometimes simply lie outright,
> and give a very false picture of what the NEA is all about and
> what it sponsors. And I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but the people
> engaging in this distortion are mostly Republicans--Helms, Gingrich,
> the two Pats, Falwell. If they want to debate govt. funding for the
> arts, fine, but let them get their facts and figures straight
> and argue from principle. I cannot listen to, say Jesse Helms or
> Pat Buchanan talk about the NEA, and not see a sinister ulterior
> motive--their talk is too emotional, too distorted, too full of
> falsehood for me to take it as principled discourse and not as
> what I think it is, an attack on the arts and artists in general.
> Can I absolutely prove that? No. Do I think everyone who opposes
> government funding for the arts has the same evil designs? Of
> course not.
>
I'm with you on this.
> Finally, despite my careful disclaimers, many people apparently
> thought my characterizations of the current leadership of the GOP
> were aimed directly at them, personally.
No, not quite...
> I know that there are
> many upstanding, principled Republicans who have a sense of
> social responsibility and can be counted on to support the arts,
> charities, etc. etc.
...Try reading this: "I know that there are many rational, ethical,
moral Democrats who have a sense of fiscal responsibilty and can be
counted on to support our national defense..."
Wouldn't you find this just a little bit annoying? Patronizing?
Ray Ch.
Do you see what I mean by "prejudices"?
Roger Lustig
>In article <1994Nov18.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>joseph louis rizzo <jl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> ...
>>If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it (the NEA)
>>to exist,
>>then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
>>to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
>>to be there.
>Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>have received NEA funding (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
>been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
>over some of that as well).
And thank *you* for refuting the poster who claimed that conservative
objections to the NEA were not related to content.
Trouble is, do we *want* to censor content? Do we *want* an official,
unchanging definition of art?
Now, how much funding has gone to these "unworthy" projects--and what
percent of the total NEA budget is that? And what percent of, say,
defense spending, goes to waste? How about tobacco subsidies, Sen.
Helms?
>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
>The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
>in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
>fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
Music lover? Most of the music you love was composed with government
subsidy. Josquin, Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Wagner...
>What is this silly discussion doing in r.m.c anyway?
You make the call.
Roger
Gregory Taylor
>Dave - if you believe that the word "liberality" means the same thing
>today that it did in the time of "the George", I have a bridge in New York
>City I would like to talk you about purhasing. :-)
Normally, when one of us makes a claim such as "The Johann Sebastian Bach
worshipped by Mendelssohn is quite different from the one that Glenn
Gould rhapsodized about. He has, in some sense, been re-invented.", we'd
expect a bit of scholarship to follow such a statement. Show your work.
Or one of us is likely to claim that Conservatism didn't used to mean something
like "protofascist"....
--
It is not a film./You cannot stay outside it/feeling the actual breeze and
scent/or play it backwards to the place where everyone/agreed upon a dest-
ination,a politics in which no one is exploited and the material/for weight-
less summer clothes appears from nowhere./Gregory Taylor/Heurikon Corporation
clovis lark
>Matthew Bonness writes:
> But in the election the common man voted to get rid of the non-common
> men (i.e. career politicians vis-a-vis Tom Foley, Cuomo, et. al.) and
> replace them with common men.
>Yes, common men such as the millionaire surgeon who's a new senator from
>Tennessee.
>--
Without launching into ad hominem attacks, not that they are necessarily
inappropriate here, this election seemed absolutely maimed by several points.
The electorate sent only one in three regestered voters to the polls. Such
an apathetic turnout can hardly be called true democracy. Since only 1 in 3
registered voters, and there were more who are eligible to vote who didn't
even bother to register, one can hardly say that the fewer than 1 in 4 who
elected the new Congress et al. are common men. What interviews and
exit polls further showed was an absolute ignorance of issues among voters.
They were fed up. They wanted change. They couldn't articulate why they were
fed up. They couldn't articulate what change they desired. They were unaware
of party platforms or ideology. The blame for this cannot merely rest on the
passive electorate. The post MTV sound bite media worked hard to create a
passive nonthinking constituency who are hooked on shows like A Current Affair,
Melrose Place, etc. Popular intellectualism so prevalent in days gone by is
no longer in evidence. Awareness of culture, any type of culture (political,
musical, etc.), is so low as to be nonexistent. And finally, there are the
parties themselves. Drunk with their hegemony, pandering a la McDonalds to
the lowest common denominator, they hardly differ in the way they behave. It
is ironic that Clinton was unable to pass significant social reforms through
houses controlled by Democrats. But it wasn't the minority Republicans who
shot him dowm. It was the conservative wing of his party which actually acts
like Republicans, one from Alabama actually switching to show his true feelings
In a political world like this where pork barrels and instant gratification
are combined with expectant passivity, culture, education, social revival, all
things which take years and produce nontangible product, are going to be
sacrificed for quick fixes and profits. It is irrelevant that people are
career politicians as it is irrelevant that they are millionaire surgeons. It
is relevant that women break ranks to vote for a misogynist. It is relevant
that quick fix slogans shoot down health care. It is relevant that the
political climate despises artistic creativity which often goes hand in hand
with creativity in such areas as the hard sciences. These last years have
been a tragedy.
Roger Lustig
>In article <3arg3n$i...@news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU>,
>Thomas J. Trebisky <t...@canopus.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
>
> The basic reason for the existence of the NEA can be found in
>two assumptions-- 1) that market forces do not, in themselves, encourage
>the production of aesthetically/intellectually interesting works of art
>or performances and 2) that a vibrant and diverse artistic life is important
>for and has an ameliorative effect on the national community as a whole.
>It's the same reason that the government funds the military, education,
>and a whole host of other "goods" whose value cannot easily be quantified--
>although on a *much* smaller scale. They are public goods that would not/
>might not exist
>>If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it fall. I guess I am just
>>an unashamed capitalist after all.
> Would you say the same thing about the military or about education,
>or about retirement funding (i.e. Social Security), all of which the
>government spends *thousands* of times more money than on the NEA?
For that matter, where are the calls to get rid of the Army Chorus, the
Strolling Strings, the Air Force band and all the rest of our service
orchestras?
Their annual budgets total about twice that of the entire NEA. Got any
value from them lately?
Roger
Gregory Taylor
>The only kind of subsidy for which I could see a justification would be
>arts education in elementary and secondary schools. This follows
>from all the standard justifications of subsidizing education in general.
But James - you're being played for a chump by the folks to your right! Do
you have any *idea* what percentage of the NEA funds those folks who you
don't like in relation to the the percentage that funds the group that
brings the Bard and Mozart to your local school? There's a couple of
millimeters of water in the pan, and your pal Mr. Helms has decided to shred
the baby. That baby bears a closer resemblance to on of your children than
you may realize.
Roger Lustig
>In article <17075A4D2S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>, MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu writes:
> Further, as a Democract, as a liberal, as a non-Christian,
>> as an artist, and as a college professor I (not me personally, but
>> you know what I mean) have been attacked as a traitor, pornographer,
>> corrupter of youth, baby-killer, you name it. And these attacks
>> have not been made in carefully modulated phrases which are
>> read only by a small number of people who are interested in
>> classical music. No...these attacks are made daily in the
>> national media by people whose every word is heard or read
>> instantly by millions of people. The notion that I am demonizing
>> them is simply laughable.
>I truly regret the attacks which you describe.
What a shame that they're part of the wave of electoral mean-spiritedness
we've just encountered. Who among the conservatives has stepped up to
condemn it in in public?
Oh, sure, we get Bennett speaking out against Prop 187, but does he
attack the rhetoric that its proponents use? And Christie Whitman
is shocked, *shocked* to discover that Bob Grant is (gasp) a racist,
and decides not to do his show anymore. But in general the right-wing
campaign of slander has been tolerated just fine by all those
principled office seekers.
>As for your post,
>It was my very clear sense that I was included among those you were
>demonizing.
Demonizing? In electoral politics in this day and age? The very *idea*!
>> Another complaint is that I am "generalizing" about the right or about
>> the Republican Party. Well, of course I am. Of what possible
>> good would a political party be if its tenets were so vague that
>> you couldn't generalize about them? That being said, it is important
>> not to overdo it, and I tried hard not to over-generalize/simplify
>> a complex argument in a relatively short (for me at any rate) essay.
>> Perhaps I failed, but it was not through lack of trying.
>Understood---which is probably why you were taken seriously. My accusation
>of generalizing had to do wit words (pardon me if I choose words that you
>did not use in your original post, as I do not have a copy) such as "anti-
>intellectual," "anti-artist," "anti-education," and "intolerant"---none of
>which have to do with the Republican ideology. [I can spell that out at
>a more appropriate time.]
Sure. Tell us about Republican gay-bashing and how that's not intolerant.
Tell us about the gag rule. About unprincipled attacks on the NEA that
Republican ideologues, strangely enough, don't have time to correct when
a Helms or a Dannemeyer shoots from the hip. Tell us about how we have
plenty of dinero for new prisons, and how it's coming out of the education
budget. (See California.)
Perhaps it's not part of official Republican ideology, but some of us
smell more than a whiff of such things in the "Contract", and hold our
noses before the onslaught of such stuff as comes pouring out of Rush
Limbaugh, who professes to be taking the Republican side, who is (or was)
produced by Roger Ailes, and whom Republicans, again, don't seem to spend
much time on correcting when he's wrong.
Methinks someone doth protest too much.
>There are very legitimate concerns which have to be faced in the government
>funding of arts and education Opposition to such funding can be based
>on legitimate fiscal or constitutional grounds---labeling such opposition
>as "anti-" this or that is unfair.
So when do we start? It would seem that the Republican *strategy* (as
opposed to any ideology that may be lurking there) has been to start with
a carpet-bombing of slander and distortion and outright lies. Look at the
sliming of Jane Alexander that the likes of Limbaugh undertook; the wild
distortions of the size of the NEA budget that official Republican
fund-raising mailings (and related PACs, of course) have employed.
*Such* opposition would be just jim-dandy--if the sleaze campaign
hadn't preceded it.
(Also, I eagerly await the budget-cutters' efforts with regard to the
military music budget, which is about twice that of the entire NEA.
Care to place bets on proposed budget cuts?)
But here's the problem: Republican ideology doesn't seem to mind the
shameful assaults that these prominent Republicans have carried out.
What does one call this? Good cop/bad cop? Or perhaps lying down
with dogs? How do we deal with the fact that the new legislative
leaders include many of those who have been flinging the tar?
>> Finally, despite my careful disclaimers, many people apparently
>> thought my characterizations of the current leadership of the GOP
>> were aimed directly at them, personally.
>No, not quite...
One *is* entitled to wonder, however, about the people who gleefully
accept the results of sleaze politics and then pretend they're
statesmen of the highest, most traditional order.
>> I know that there are
>> many upstanding, principled Republicans who have a sense of
>> social responsibility and can be counted on to support the arts,
>> charities, etc. etc.
>...Try reading this: "I know that there are many rational, ethical,
>moral Democrats who have a sense of fiscal responsibilty and can be
>counted on to support our national defense..."
>Wouldn't you find this just a little bit annoying? Patronizing?
Far less so than the organized campaigns of slander that have poured
out of our radios, newspapers, televisions, and mailboxes for the
last two years. To hear Rush and his ilk tell it, to be a Democrat
(or, worse yet, a "liberal"--a word that seems to translate to "icky-poo"
or the like in such discourse; it certainly has no recognizable referent)
is in and of itself an act of disloyalty, venality, perversion, and
worse.
Do you not understand that it's a shade too late in the day to
complain about rhetoric that isn't 100% respectful of the other
side? That such respect is *earned*, and that Gingrich, Helms,
etc. are, to put it mildly, overdrawn on their accounts?
>Do you see what I mean by "prejudices"?
Do you see what I mean by protesting too much?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article 9...@silver.scs.unr.edu, rh...@scs.unr.edu (Ryan M. Hare) writes:
>> MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu wrote:
>> <an argument discussing the anti-artistic and anti-intellectual nature of
>> the Republican party>
>> Consider:
>Stuff deleted....
>> Schubert, who was a pedophile
>Whaat?????
>This is the first time I've come across this. What sources
>and evidence are there to substantiate this statement?
See Maynard Solomon, "Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini",
in _Nineteenth Century Music_ about three years ago, plus the subsequent
debates in NCM, the New York Review of Books (about three months ago),
and so on. There's a good deal of circumstantial evidence that Schubert
was homosexual, and some (incl. references to "peacocks") that he was
something of a chickenhawk. Rita Steblin has argued against this in the
most forceful terms, but some of her arguments are quite fanciful.
Roger
RJTolsma
Klein) writes:
>You know, you may be right that the Mapplethorpe exhibit was not worth
>grant it was given.
The "PissChrist" to which you were referring is by Serrano. I saw the
Mapplethorpe exhibit before all the stink and found it very worthwhile.
Granted, there were a few images which would certainly offend some, but
the majority of the images were moving, beautiful, and thought provoking.
The world has lost an important artist with his passing. What concerns me
is the effect strict govertnment control would have on the arts, including
theatre and music. Would Samuel Barber's "The Lovers" be deemed
appropriate by the likes of Helms? The arts need always to be pushing the
limits, and yes, offending some.
M. Connelly
: In article <1994Nov18.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
: joseph louis rizzo <jl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
: > ...
: >If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it (the NEA)
: >to exist,
: >then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
: >to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
: >to be there.
: Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
: down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
: have received NEA funding (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
: been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
: over some of that as well).
I totally agree with the idea that if the public doesn't want the NEA to
exist, it should be disbanded. However, this is not the case; there are
a great many people that DO want the NEA to exist. And I would bet that
many people who have been sucked in by the anti-NEA propaganda machine
would change their mind about getting rid of the NEA if they knew that
the loss of the NEA would open up the possibility of their local
orchestra/museum/theatre group/etc. having to close down due to lack of
funding.
: So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
: The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
: in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
: fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
Why should the government fund the arts? Without this funding, there
would be less art produceed, and less performing arts organizations in
business. Do you really think that private donations will increase to
cover the lost government funding? Or consider the possibility of
orchestral ticket prices doubling or tripling to make up the lost money.
Is this something most orchestras would be able to survive?
: What is this silly discussion doing in r.m.c anyway? : --
If you think the possibility of your local orchestra folding due to lack
of funding is "silly", why are you doing reading r.m.c?
Funny, even with the all the posts defending republicans, I have yet to
see one that really argues with the original topic "why GOP victory bad
for classical music." I've seen "let the arts fall" and reasons why we
should stop government funding of the arts, but I have yet to see even
one arguement of "why the GOP victory will be GOOD for classical music"
Mike Connelly
: Tom Trebisky Steward Observatory
Alain DAGHER
: Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
: down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
: have received NEA funding (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
: been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
: over some of that as well).
: So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
: The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
: in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
: fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
^^^^^^^^^^
The correct term is: "philistine".
--
Best wishes,
Alain Dagher
E-Mail: al...@pet.mni.mcgill.ca
Alain DAGHER
: In article <3avd8g$4...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> g...@zoo.bt.co.uk writes:
: >In article 9...@silver.scs.unr.edu, rh...@scs.unr.edu (Ryan M. Hare) writes:
: >> Schubert, who was a pedophile
: >Whaat?????
: >This is the first time I've come across this. What sources
: >and evidence are there to substantiate this statement?
: See Maynard Solomon, "Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini",
: in _Nineteenth Century Music_ about three years ago, plus the subsequent
: debates in NCM, the New York Review of Books (about three months ago),
: and so on. There's a good deal of circumstantial evidence that Schubert
: was homosexual, and some (incl. references to "peacocks") that he was
: something of a chickenhawk. Rita Steblin has argued against this in the
: most forceful terms, but some of her arguments are quite fanciful.
Two questions:
1. What is a chickenhawk?
2. What do references to peacocks imply?
--
Naively yours...
Alain Dagher
E-Mail: al...@pet.mni.mcgill.ca
Paul Homchick
isn't a personal reply to Mike. This discussion needs a little more
participation on the con side of the question (see subject).
m...@MCS.COM (M. Connelly) wrote:
> [...] a great many people that DO want the NEA to exist. And I would
> bet that many people who have been sucked in by the anti-NEA
> propaganda machine would change their mind about getting rid of the
> NEA if they knew that the loss of the NEA would open up the
> possibility of their local orchestra/museum/theatre group/etc. having
> to close down due to lack of funding.
If people want their local orchestra/museum/theatre group/etc. to
survive, they will find the funding. If the percentage of the GDP
that goes to financing the Federal Government went down, they would
have more money to provide the funding themselves. This argument that
all good flows from the Federal Government, and that people can't be
expected to arrange their lives and environments by themselves is
exactly what most infuriates conservatives like myself, and, I
suspect, a great many of the republican voters in the recent election.
> Why should the government fund the arts? Without this funding, there
> would be less art produceed, and less performing arts organizations in
> business.
So? Since when is the subsidized production of "art" universally
recognized as a public good? Do (let's not take that first sentence
out of context) you suppose that the more money we spend and the more
arts organizations there are, the better the arts will be? Isn't it
just possible that good art is a limited commodity, and is inelastic
to increased demand? Isn't it possible that the more money the
Federal Government spends on art, the more bad art we will get?
If the idea of a panel of "arts experts" sitting in Washington and
deciding which art is worthy of support and which art is not worthy,
makes you happy, then welcome to The State Commission on the
Eradication of Formalism in Music. For myself, I am willing to put my
trust the people that support the arts at the local level by attending
events and making donations of cash and volunteer time.
I do not like the Right's censorship of Mapplethorpe, but the correct
solution to this problem isn't to make certain it is _your_ censors
that control the purse-strings, it is to take away the purse, and to
remove the ability of anyone to censor art. It is the existence of
this power that causes the corruption.
> Do you really think that private donations will increase to cover the
> lost government funding?
Yes I do. Those arts institutions that the local community wants to
support will be supported. Those who produce new art will continue to
produce worthwhile (and perhaps a bit of the not-worthwhile, but time
will sort it all out without subsidies) new art anyway if they are
dedicated.
> Or consider the possibility of orchestral ticket prices doubling or
> tripling to make up the lost money. Is this something most orchestras
> would be able to survive?
A red herring. It makes the assumption that lost Federal funding must
be made up by increasing ticket prices.
> [...] but I have yet to see even one arguement of "why the GOP victory
> will be GOOD for classical music"
Nor, I hope, will you. Classical music is not an appropriate national
concern the Federal Government should address. Classical music is a
special-interest group issue, just the same as tobacco subsidies.
On the other hand, these are the things that will help classical
music: supporting your local orchestra by attending the concerts and
making donations; supporting the production and distribution of
classical music by buying CDs and videos of classical music;
supporting the educational avenues by becoming active in local school
boards, and working with local arts groups to provide educational
events. If you feel passionately about the arts, do something to
support them yourself. Do not expect the Federal Government to
support your passions.
--
Paul Homchick :UUCP dsinc!cgh!paul
Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. : pitt!amanue!-/
1111 West DeKalb Pike, Suite 101 :Internet pa...@cgh.com
Wayne, PA 19087-2179 :Sometimes/Internet phom...@wpo.hcc.com
Paul Homchick
(First a quote from Milo, although it certainly would be fun to
attribute it to Roger)
> > The retraction of government funding of art is an is-
> >sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
> >creations.
>
> Then why haven't the NEA's detractors said so? They say the opposite:
> punish the NEA for choosing the wrong art. That's what Helms, Dannemeyer,
> and the rest have said.
Those opponents who are principled, and there are many, have said so.
Those who wish to punish the NEA only for choosing the wrong art, are
playing with fire, as they leave intact the principle of government
coercion of the arts, an argument which, as Roger has pointed out, is
very hard to support.
> See the Congressional Record.
Hmm, okay. Would you please give a citation where I might start
looking? Oh yes, please define "and the rest" so I can make certain
to find everything. (You aren't, by any chance, making a
generalization here?)
Paul Homchick
> In article <3aorl9$8...@amhux3.amherst.edu>, jak...@unix.amherst.edu (Josh
> Klein) writes:
> [...] Would Samuel Barber's "The Lovers" be deemed appropriate by the
> likes of Helms?
Good question. I'll think I'll write him a letter and ask him. It
will be fun to get a letter back from a demonized scapegoat.
> The arts need always to be pushing the limits, and
> yes, offending some.
On the hunch that _everything_ will offend _someone_ I'll give
grudging agreement to this idea. However, it does not mean that
the Federal Government should fund the arts!
RJTolsma
Homchick) writes:
>On the hunch that _everything_ will offend _someone_ I'll give
>grudging agreement to this idea. However, it does not mean that
>the Federal Government should fund the arts!
>--
I've always supported goverment funding for the arts because I believe
they speak to the core of our experience as members of a society, and
without financial support, many works of art would not be
created/heard/seen/experienced. I just returned from London, where the
arts are heavily subsidized, and saw what a difference it can make. I saw
one play on the West End that would never have made it to Broadway. It
had a limited appeal, and frankly wasn't great. But it was good, and it
deserved to be staged. Thousands of people will see that play. In this
country, it either would not have been mounted, or would have received
such a limited run in a small theater that many who would have enjoyed and
been enriched by it would have missed out. I also saw two productions at
ENO which would put most of this country's opera houses to shame,
including the Met. Here was London's *second string* opera company
putting on productions (Massanet's "Don Quixotte" and Strauss' "Ariadne")
that were thoroughly rehearsed, superbly sung, cleverly staged and
brilliantly directed. I was speechless after both performances. Why do
our opera companies struggle to put on performances like that? Because
they don't have the money for rehearsals, productions, and singers. Most
of the GOP leaders I've heard are in favor of reducing or eliminating
goverment subsidies for the arts. Certainly not in favor of increasing
them. Lord no! But let's increase spending for the military.
Roger Lustig
>Even though Mike Connelly's comments form the basis for my reply, it
>isn't a personal reply to Mike. This discussion needs a little more
>participation on the con side of the question (see subject).
>m...@MCS.COM (M. Connelly) wrote:
>> [...] a great many people that DO want the NEA to exist. And I would
>> bet that many people who have been sucked in by the anti-NEA
>> propaganda machine would change their mind about getting rid of the
>> NEA if they knew that the loss of the NEA would open up the
>> possibility of their local orchestra/museum/theatre group/etc. having
>> to close down due to lack of funding.
>If people want their local orchestra/museum/theatre group/etc. to
>survive, they will find the funding. If the percentage of the GDP
>that goes to financing the Federal Government went down, they would
>have more money to provide the funding themselves. This argument that
>all good flows from the Federal Government, and that people can't be
>expected to arrange their lives and environments by themselves is
>exactly what most infuriates conservatives like myself, and, I
>suspect, a great many of the republican voters in the recent election.
a) There's no need to caricatureyour opponents with things like "the
idea that all good flows from the government." That's cheap.
b) Note that this argument can be extended to *any* government
program, not least the public schools, and I don't think that, despite
widespread dissatisfaction with tax levels, people are in general
interested in closing *them*. (Some radicals are, but that's a tiny
majority.)
c) And do the things that the NEA supports not serve educational
functions? Many of these groups provide special programming,
outreach, etc. for schools, etc.
d) The amount spent on the NEA is incredibly small even when compared
to a certain other government *arts* program I've mentioned here, and
which the new Congressional majority has shown no interest in cutting.
What *about* those military bands?
>> Why should the government fund the arts? Without this funding, there
>> would be less art produceed, and less performing arts organizations in
>> business.
>So? Since when is the subsidized production of "art" universally
>recognized as a public good?
About 3000 BC. Why do you ask?
>Do (let's not take that first sentence
>out of context) you suppose that the more money we spend and the more
>arts organizations there are, the better the arts will be? Isn't it
Again, there's no need to engage in such rhetoric. Suffice it to say
that the NEA provides only a small amount of funding, but does so in
a targeted manner.
>just possible that good art is a limited commodity, and is inelastic
>to increased demand?
Bloody unlikely, given what we know of the history of art. Good art
*does* follow the money, in general.
>Isn't it possible that the more money the
>Federal Government spends on art, the more bad art we will get?
How will you tell? Who determines what's good and what's bad art?
Also, is there any indication for this assumption, based on the n
history of the NEA? What projects has it funded? What projects
has it kept alive?
>If the idea of a panel of "arts experts" sitting in Washington and
>deciding which art is worthy of support and which art is not worthy,
>makes you happy, then welcome to The State Commission on the
>Eradication of Formalism in Music.
Please note that this is *counter* to the mission of the NEA, and
that it has been an explicit goal of Sen. Helms. At one point
he and his friends even got a measure passed (which was struck down
by the courts) that banned funding for art that dared to mention
homosexuality in a positive way.
Does that make *you* happy? I'm afraid that you're describing the
*conservative* position, even while attempting to caricature your
opponents.
>For myself, I am willing to put my
>trust the people that support the arts at the local level by attending
>events and making donations of cash and volunteer time.
Feel that way about public schools?
>I do not like the Right's censorship of Mapplethorpe, but the correct
>solution to this problem isn't to make certain it is _your_ censors
>that control the purse-strings, it is to take away the purse, and to
>remove the ability of anyone to censor art.
Better not teach art or music or literature in school, then, either.
>It is the existence of this power that causes the corruption.
No. It is intolerance that causes such corruption.
>> Do you really think that private donations will increase to cover the
>> lost government funding?
>Yes I do.
Evidence? The NEA budget was cut several times in the Reagan and Bush
administrations. What happened to contributions?
>Those arts institutions that the local community wants to
>support will be supported.
Got next Friday's Dow for me, while you're prognosticating? Again,
is the subject matter of education entirely a matter of local community
decision?
>Those who produce new art will continue to
>produce worthwhile (and perhaps a bit of the not-worthwhile, but time
>will sort it all out without subsidies)
And with, as it always has. What's your point?
>new art anyway if they are dedicated.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, I'm afraid.
>> Or consider the possibility of orchestral ticket prices doubling or
>> tripling to make up the lost money. Is this something most orchestras
>> would be able to survive?
>A red herring. It makes the assumption that lost Federal funding must
>be made up by increasing ticket prices.
It has in the past. Got a counterargument?
>> [...] but I have yet to see even one arguement of "why the GOP victory
>> will be GOOD for classical music"
>Nor, I hope, will you. Classical music is not an appropriate national
>concern the Federal Government should address.
We're firing the Army Chorus next week, then, right?
>Classical music is a
>special-interest group issue, just the same as tobacco subsidies.
Unlike tobacco, classical music doesn't kill when used as directed.
Unlike tobacco, classical music is a traditional portion of the
curriculum of American public schools and colleges.
That's *really* weak.
>On the other hand, these are the things that will help classical
>music: supporting your local orchestra by attending the concerts and
>making donations; supporting the production and distribution of
>classical music by buying CDs and videos of classical music;
>supporting the educational avenues by becoming active in local school
>boards, and working with local arts groups to provide educational
>events. If you feel passionately about the arts, do something to
>support them yourself. Do not expect the Federal Government to
>support your passions.
Well, let's see what the new Congress *does* feel like supporting.
The tiny NEA budget doesn't strike me as a particularly dignified
place to *begin* cutting.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>(First a quote from Milo, although it certainly would be fun to
>attribute it to Roger)
>> > The retraction of government funding of art is an is-
>> >sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
>> >creations.
>> Then why haven't the NEA's detractors said so? They say the opposite:
>> punish the NEA for choosing the wrong art. That's what Helms, Dannemeyer,
>> and the rest have said.
>Those opponents who are principled, and there are many, have said so.
Who in Congress? I'd like to know.
>Those who wish to punish the NEA only for choosing the wrong art, are
>playing with fire, as they leave intact the principle of government
>coercion of the arts, an argument which, as Roger has pointed out, is
>very hard to support.
>> See the Congressional Record.
>Hmm, okay. Would you please give a citation where I might start
>looking? Oh yes, please define "and the rest" so I can make certain
>to find everything. (You aren't, by any chance, making a
>generalization here?)
Certainly not. Where do you think the anti-gay stricture came from?
Helms has spoken on the topic many times. There were several floor debates
on the matter in the Ford Admin.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>> In article <3aorl9$8...@amhux3.amherst.edu>, jak...@unix.amherst.edu (Josh
>> Klein) writes:
>> [...] Would Samuel Barber's "The Lovers" be deemed appropriate by the
>> likes of Helms?
>Good question. I'll think I'll write him a letter and ask him. It
>will be fun to get a letter back from a demonized scapegoat.
A *what*? We're talking about someone who just told us that the President
should wear a bullet-proof vest when visiting his state. He's demonized
himself just fine.
>> The arts need always to be pushing the limits, and
>> yes, offending some.
>On the hunch that _everything_ will offend _someone_ I'll give
>grudging agreement to this idea. However, it does not mean that
>the Federal Government should fund the arts!
It will be doing so even if the NEA budget is zero.
Roger
Philip F. Wight
the arrogance of the people administrating the NEA is what might
lead to their downfall. I accept at face value your assertions that the
wacky grants for things like the pissChrist were miniscule in comparison
to other, more worthwhile supports, but EVERYONE knows that it doesn't
matter what you DO, what matters is the PERCEPTION of what you do. A
great many people perceve the NEA to be a "hotbed" of liberal weenies
hellbent on destroying art as we know it. Now, mind you, I didn't say
that this is the real situation, only that it is perceved to be so.
They have only themselves to blame.
Cheers,
Phil
--
Philip F. Wight <pwi...@rahul.net>
Michael Weston
Perhaps you have forgotten the art of "spin." Why are the NEA perceived
in the manner that they are?
I personally doubt that your reading of "pissChrist" goes much beyond the
shocking cpoupling that is the title. That the most sensationalistic
attributes of controversial works have been fixated upon to the detriment
of fairly coherant meanings carried by these works (Serrano is Catholic;
pissChrist is about the cheapening of the Holy) is the responsibility of
of Republicans, not the people who saw the piece in its intended context.
That you characterize the NEA decisions as "wacky" either indicates you
have no interest in what these works of art are beyond what the
Republicans who created the furor *told you they were,* or you simply are
of an ilk that cannot fathom disagreement over the subtleties or
religious practice and cannot imagine that a man might, quite naturally,
not find himself attracted to women. (I'm sure this isn't what you
think, but, really, you should pick your words more carefully.)
To put it simply, your theory of perception vs. truth is infected with
some less-than-illuminating characterizations which promote further
ill-formed "perceptions."
Sorry to be so demanding. Careful thought can be very helpful, despite
its low levels and supply and demand.
M
Philip F. Wight (pwi...@rahul.net) wrote:
: Re the NEA thing, I think there is one fact on which you all might agree:
--
Richard Carnes
>If people want their local orchestra/museum/theatre group/etc. to
>survive, they will find the funding. If the percentage of the GDP
>that goes to financing the Federal Government went down, they would
>have more money to provide the funding themselves. This argument that
>all good flows from the Federal Government, and that people can't be
>expected to arrange their lives and environments by themselves is
>exactly what most infuriates conservatives like myself,
You (and the other discussants in this thread) might want to read
Ronald Dworkin's essay "Can a Liberal State Support Art?", which
appears in his book _A Matter of Principle_. Here's a sample:
: "Though we cannot imagine our culture losing any of the basic
: vocabulary of art entirely -- we can scarcely imagine losing the power
: to distinguish fiction from lie -- we can all too easily imagine less
: dramatic adverse change. For example, we now have the conceptual
: equipment to find aesthetic value in historical and cultural
: continuity. We can, and do, find various forms of quotation from the
: history of our culture exciting; we find value in the idea that
: contemporary art reworks themes or styles of other ages or is rich in
: allusion to them, that the past is with us, reworked, in the present.
: But this complex idea is as much dependent on a shared practice as is
: the idea of narrative fiction. It can be sustained only so long as
: that practice continues in a lively form, only so long as the past is
: kept alive among us, in the larger culture that radiates out from the
: museum and university into concentric circles embracing the experience
: of a much larger community. The very possibility of finding aesthetic
: value in continuity depends on our continuing to achieve success and
: interest in continuity; and this in turn may well require a rich stock
: of illustrative and comparative collections that can only or best be
: maintained in museums and explored in universities and other
: academies. If it is right that the community as a whole, and not just
: those who use these institutions directly, shares and employs the
: structural possibilities of continuity and reference, something like
: the public-good argument for state support of such institutions is
: rehabilitated.
:
: "The language of culture can grow impoverished in a second way, not by
: losing particular dimensions of value, like continuity, but by
: becoming less innovative, by ceasing to develop or elaborate new
: dimensions. Our own culture has had moments of particular
: originality, when a use of language or a kind of presentation is
: suddenly claimed for art, as valuable in the aesthetic dimension, and
: the claim succeeds. Our ability to innovate is based on tradition in
: two ways, or on two levels. We must have a tradition *of* innovation,
: and we must have particular forms of art sufficiently open-ended and
: amenable to reinterpretation so that continuity can be preserved
: *through* innovation, so that people can see what is new as
: nevertheless sufficiently connected to what they already regard as a
: mode of art, sufficiently connected to be embraced as falling within
: the same overall mode of experience. These traditions can languish
: into an academic or conventionalist settlement when the boundaries of
: what can count as art are drawn too tightly, and art degenerates into
: what is merely familiar or only pretty, or worse still, what is useful
: for some nonaesthetic goal. The state of art in some tyrannies is a
: depressing reminder of what is possible by way of degeneration.
:
: "We have much less difficulty in imagining changes that count as the
: decay rather than the extinction of some main branch of culture. Our
: question was, Can there be any objection, in principle, to accepting
: the postulate and the program I have described: that people are better
: off when the opportunities their culture provides are more complex and
: diverse, and that we should act as trustees for the future of the
: complexity of our own culture? ... I noted two standing objections to
: the lofty approach to state support for the arts: paternalism and
: elitism. If state subsidy has as its purpose protecting structure
: rather than providing particular aesthetic events, the charge of
: paternalism is defused. So is the charge of elitism, because
: structure affects almost everyone's life, and in such fundamental and
: unpredictable ways that we lack the conceptual equipment to measure
: who benefits most from the various possibilities and ideas they
: generate...." [Ronald Dworkin]
Milo Cooper
Roger Lustig <ro...@astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <CzLrG...@crash.cts.com> mdco...@crash.cts.com (Milo Cooper) writes:
>
>> The retraction of governement funding of art is an is-
>>sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
>>creations.
>
>Then why haven't the NEA's detractors said so? They say the opposite:
>punish the NEA for choosing the wrong art. That's what Helms, Dannemeyer,
A good way to support a prinicple is to evince its legiti-
macy; for example, by demonstrating what happens when it is not
followed. That answers your question.
>>The ethic is very simple: the government should not
>>provide financial support to an artist, whether s/he is favored by
>>or out of favor with taxpayers. People should be free to give
>>finance to whatever specific artwork they wish to promote. They
>>should not be made to pay the governement to determine what is
>>worthwhile. Period.
>
>Does that mean we should fire all the composers, painters, and novelists
>at the universities, too?
If they aren't professors or transient special guests, yes.
>>>It does not, then, seem too unreasonable to expect that the Republican
>>>victory (which has catapulted such open-minded gentlemen as Jesse Helms
>>>and Strom Thurmond, former pro-segregation presidential candidate into
>>>leadership positions) may actually put into practise some of the ideas
>>>they have been advocating for the last five years.
>
>> Such as...? You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid,
>>as you request of Mr. Wright in the following excerpt; I don't
>>care to grope for your arguments.
>
>"Homosexuality is an orientation the way alcoholism is an orientation."
> -- Newt Gingrich
That quote doesn't prove to me that promotion of long-held
beliefs upon being elected is an exclusively Republican/conserva-
tive practice.
>> There is no utter substitute for experience, and there
>>are enough experienced individuals about that university elit-
>>ists are superfluous.
>
>In other words, expertise *disqualifies* one from discussion? How odd.
Pffft, please explain to me how you drew that little
aphorism from my statement. This ought to be good.
>PS: what did Gingrich do before he ran for congress?
Oh, I see, this is an example of more convenient and
abrupt liberal reasoning. When I wrote "university elitists,"
your mind simplified that to "anyone with lots of vicarious
experience."
>>The only reason that one attends an in-
>>stitution of learning rather than electing for the greater
>>teacher of experience is that the latter is usually impracti-
>>cal.
>
>Right, as though *any* amount of street learning would teach one
>particle physics.
Didn't I just say that? Yes, Einstein, learning parti-
cle physics in laboratories is impractical versus university
tutelage. If I learn the science in the lab, as unlikely as
that may be, then my experience will have provided me with in-
formation unavailable to those who have gathered general infor-
mation from college professors. It is by doing that any of us
are provided with insight, far more so than by data accrual.
Why do you suppose that scientific pedagogy includes actual lab-
oratory activity?
>>What sane person prefers the various degrees of inexper-
>>ience had by one man over the single firm grasps of disciplines
>>had by others? For the attainment of professional status, would
>>you rather be taught by someone who, having read several relative
>>volumes and having ruminated in solitude for many a day on your
>>field of interest, was possessed of much vicarious knowledge, or
>>would you rather be informed by an actual, accredited, working
>>professional? You can take up a bag full of immature fruits,
>>not knowing what you will get but expecting nothing appreciable,
>>or you can take up many bags, each of which contains a single
>>ripe, plump, and tasty item. While the former course has its
>>merits -- one could get lucky and have much good food in fewer
>>sacks, or one could happen upon a most rare or unique fruit --
>>it is ultimately the less reliable of the two methods toward an
>>end of satisfaction, and as such, should be utilized for experi-
>>ment, not everyday practice. One must first go with what is
>>most certain. That is the concept of Republicanism which Demo-
>>crats never fail to miss.
>
>Actually, it sounds more like Mao to me. But no matter--it's
>still prfoundly anti-intellectual, and completely full of shit
>to boot; just what is this "end of satisfaction," and why do you
>suppose that there's one approqch that works best in all cases?
Is Mao anti-intellectual, is that your claim?
The "end of satisfaction," quite patently, is the attain-
ment of a predetermined goal. In the above scenario, that goal
is the consumption of a tasty fruit. A goal more relevant to
this discussion is the positive edification of humanity by ex-
posure to art.
What I find entirely reprehensible about so-called "intel-
lectuals" and liberals and their ilk is that they insist on scru-
tinizing anything of their interest to the point that they either
(a) aggrandize its banal aspects, and so appreciate and advocate
the elements of it which are unworthy of such attention, or (b) man-
age to detect and extol aspects of the item which do not actually
exist. Much of this, I suspect, is due to any attitude from indif-
ference to rejection of traditional beliefs. That some of these
traditonal beliefs may actually find support in truth is missed;
it is enough for an "intellectual" or today's liberal to know that
they are widely-held and/or based on simple logic, that s/he may
discard them altogether. It is, I suggest to you, active blindness.
As for the question "why do you suppose that there's one
approach that works best in all cases," just stop what you are
doing, Roger, and read that inquiry. How can more than one ap-
proach be best? What does "best" mean? "Best" is an exclusive
adjective, I'm afraid.
>>Insight is marvelous, but it must
>>play second violin to the lessons of history. And history is
>>experience.
>
>But *knowledge* of history is knowledge. And insight. Historical
>learning without insight is nothing at all/
Will you learn more about space travel by reading of it
rather than participating in it? We agree that insight is cru-
cial. However, my method of its attainment is more reliable
than yours. Mine is hands-on. Yours is vicarious. We humans
only put up with your method because it is more practical, but
if we could, we'd go with experience every time. For example,
promotion of art via government (NEA) makes for vicarious selec-
tion of just what art is worthwhile. Direct and selective public
support of art requires, by its very nature, that people in-
vestigate art -- that they get their hands on it, to whatever de-
gree (which is always greater than the entirely passive method
you promote) -- in order to support it.
>>>> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
>>>> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
>>>> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
>>>> high percentage of Republicans.
>
>>>This has little bearing on the issue we were discussing. These people who
>>>generously send their checks in to public radio stations and local
>>>symphonies may still have elected representatives in Congress who intend
>>>to slash government spending.
>
>> It seems to me that such individuals have opted to de-
>>cide for themselves what they will advance. Works for me. The
>>goverment certainly doesn't comprise omniscient gods. Oh, how
>
>But you seem to be, because you realize that nobody really needs all
>that book-larnin.
We need it to a point. We don't need it to the exclusion
or degradation of experience.
>>liberals would rant if all of the art that the government sup-
>>ports were of a religious bent.
>
>You mean, like Andres Serrano? A devout Catholic, that man, and it
>shows in his work. FYI, many NEA-funded projects have a religious
>bent, starting with all the choral works...
>
>Roger
I said ALL of the art.
__m d c__
|1 9 9 4| Milo D. Cooper (mdco...@crash.cts.com)
~~~~~~~~~
John E. Harrington
>> ...
>>If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it (the NEA)
>>to exist,
>>then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
>>to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
>>to be there.
>
>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>have received NEA funding
Like classical music.
> (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
>been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
>over some of that as well).
>
>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
Because in a capitalist society experimentation and the introduction of new
ideas is discouraged in favor of giving the customer what he wants.
The market can't demand something if it has never heard of it before.
>The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
>in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
>fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
We can kiss classical music goodbye, then. Get ready for a Golden Age of
rap music and Rod McCuen.
>What is this silly discussion doing in r.m.c anyway?
What are you doing participating in a "silly discussion" anyway?
The future of the arts is extremely relevant to this charter, IMO.
regards,
JH
--
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is *
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. *
*******************************************************************************
Roger Lustig
>Re the NEA thing, I think there is one fact on which you all might agree:
>the arrogance of the people administrating the NEA is what might
>lead to their downfall.
Such as?
>I accept at face value your assertions that the
>wacky grants for things like the pissChrist were miniscule in comparison
>to other, more worthwhile supports,
There was *no* grant for "Piss Christ." There was a grant for a touring
exhibition of photographs, which happened to be a superb exhibition. Some
people were offended by one of the pictures, which happens to be a
devout Catholic's statement about the abuses of religion.
>but EVERYONE knows that it doesn't
>matter what you DO, what matters is the PERCEPTION of what you do. A
So why not improve your perception? Instead of spreading misinformation,
as the NEA's detractors have done at the top of their lungs for five
years now, how about providing some facts?
>great many people perceve the NEA to be a "hotbed" of liberal weenies
>hellbent on destroying art as we know it. Now, mind you, I didn't say
>that this is the real situation, only that it is perceved to be so.
"It is perceived" -- by whom? Why? Who created this perception, this
image? Arrogant administrators? I don't think so. Politicians out
for blood? That's more likely.
>They have only themselves to blame.
No. If people lie about you, it's not your fault. It's the liar's fault.
Roger
Josh Klein
> I've always supported goverment funding for the arts because I believe
> they speak to the core of our experience as members of a society, and
> without financial support, many works of art would not be
> created/heard/seen/experienced.
Yes, government support for the arts does allow productions of new or
little-known works. It is also important to remember that government
support for the arts can make the arts accessible tothose hwo can not
afford the high-priced tickets that would become the norm without
subsidies. In fact, classical music is already priced out of the reach
of many Americans. Eliminating subsidies would shut much more of the
population out of classical music.
The attck on the arts is somewhat surprising. Governments subsidize sports,
already, in so many ways (baseball antitrust exemption, city financing of
ballparks, state college athletic programs). Why focus all this ire on
the arts?
-Josh
--
Josh Klein
Amherst College
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
You're being very unfair to your opponents (myself not among them) by
some of your word choices---e.g., "attack," "ire." Hillary Rodham Clinton
uses similar tactics by accusing people of being "against health care," when
she really should say "against the Clinton health care proposal." I don't
think that is to be admired or emulated.
Your last argument cam be best met by examining details. Government subsidies
for sports generally pay for themselves with the revenues that they produce,
either directly or indirectly. The arts, on the other hand, usually cannot
make a similar claim. Apples and oranges.
We now have a national debt in the trillions, with no tangible relief in
sight. Thus, it is imperative that the nation look for ways to cut the
public spending.Whatever the reasons for questioning subsidization of the
congenial defense of the arts, in your most sincere and eloquent language--
rather than making wholesale attacks on the relatively few extremists on the
other side.
Ray Ch.
Jeff Harrington
: Your last argument cam be best met by examining details. Government subsidies
: for sports generally pay for themselves with the revenues that they produce,
: either directly or indirectly. The arts, on the other hand, usually cannot
: make a similar claim.
God, you are *so* wrong Ray! Cities are *beginning* to be re-vitalized
now, why? Because of tourism? What kind of tourism?
Art tourism! Museums, operas, concert halls. If we can pay a billion
dollars for one stinking air plane we *don't* need, we can pay $50
million dollars to the arts. This is SEED money, dammit... it's not
complete support.
Really, this is so damn sick.... the arts need every penny. And the few
media-manipulating censor-seeking artists that get a couple of thousand
dollars have turned *any* art subsidization talk into support for wackos.
Get real Ray... you want new CD's? Better CD's? Do you really want to
see what'll happen without the NEA? Are you a BIG Ormandy fan?
Keep the NEA.
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
PostScript Scores at ftp.gmd.de in music/scores/harrington
Check out BlueStrider for Piano ftp.cs.ruu.nl pub/MIDI/SONGS/MISC/BlueStri.mid
--
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV - All Days But Thursdays(ABC) on CBS Since 1984 (*)
(*) Jeff Harrington Scores at ftp.gmd.de /music/scores/harrington (*)
(*) Elsie Russell GIF's at sunsite.unc.edu /pub/multimedia/pictures/OTIS (*)
(*) Flood the World with Light! Meditate Today! NO MORE WARS!!! (*)
David M. Cook
Jeff Harrington <idea...@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
>Are you a BIG Ormandy fan?
What's with all the Ormandy bashing as of late.
I support guv'ment funding of the arts, BTW.
Dave Cook
Jeff Harrington
: In article <D01p4...@dorsai.org>,
: Jeff Harrington <idea...@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
: >Are you a BIG Ormandy fan?
: What's with all the Ormandy bashing as of late.
I'm sorry - I was listening to his Sibelius 2 just yesterday actually.
He just kind of stands for uh... something...
Deserved or not... Sorry... :-/
: I support guv'ment funding of the arts, BTW.
Jim_...@transarc.com
> Your last argument cam be best met by examining details. Government subsidies
> for sports generally pay for themselves with the revenues that they produce,
> either directly or indirectly. The arts, on the other hand, usually cannot
> make a similar claim. Apples and oranges.
Government subsidies to sports SOMETIMES pay off. Sometimes they
don't. Some recent studies have shown that the money some colleges
spend on football and basketball really is a loss to the university
(which, in the case of public universities, means that it is a loss
for the taxpayers). Note that this in not necessarily a bad thing;
everything in life does not have to turn a profit.
However, the same statement applies to the arts: sometimes the
subsidies pay off, sometimes not. Certainly money given to symphony
orchestras and art museums, for example, pays off in increased revenue
generated (directly and indrectly) by these organizations.
> We now have a national debt in the trillions, with no tangible relief in
> sight. Thus, it is imperative that the nation look for ways to cut the
> public spending.Whatever the reasons for questioning subsidization of the
> congenial defense of the arts, in your most sincere and eloquent language--
> rather than making wholesale attacks on the relatively few extremists on the
> other side.
Part of the problem is that the "relatively few extremists on the
other side," as you call them, are the ones getting the press and
stating the case for that side. Perhaps there are good reasons for
cutting some parts of the NEA budget until we (the US) gets its fiscal
house in order. But when the spokesmen for the other side come out for
completely junking it. And in doing so they mislead the public by
implying that all or most of the money the NEA spends goes into
funding avant garde artists. It doesn't. Because of the way Helms and
company have caried on, most of the public thinks that the majority of
the NEA budget goes to avant garde stuff. I think far fewer people
would support drastic NEA funding cuts if they realized how much goes
to their local art museum, orchestra, etc.--things that are certainly
important to the community. (Most Pittsburghers don't go to the
symphony, any more than most XXXers (fill in city) go to their
symphony orchestra. But most feel that the Pittsburgh Symphony is an
important part of the city.)
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage:
file://grand.central.org/afs/transarc.com/public/jmann/html/Home.html
Football players, somewhere back in their phylogenic development,
learned how to talk like football coaches. ("Our goals this week were
to contain Dickerson and control the line of scrimmage.") Baseball
players say things like, "This pitcher's so bad that when he comes in,
the grounds crew drags the warning track."
-- Tom Boswell, "99 Reasons Why Baseball Is Better than Football"
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> : Your last argument cam be best met by examining details. Government subsidies
> : for sports generally pay for themselves with the revenues that they produce,
> : either directly or indirectly. The arts, on the other hand, usually cannot
> : make a similar claim.
>
[Jeff responds with:]
> God, you are *so* wrong Ray!
> Cities are being revitalized
> Cities are *beginning* to be re-vitalized
> now, why? Because of tourism? What kind of tourism?
>
> Art tourism! Museums, operas, concert halls. If we can pay a billion
> dollars for one stinking air plane we *don't* need, we can pay $50
> million dollars to the arts. This is SEED money, dammit... it's not
> complete support.
>
[To which Ray replies:]
Be careful: I did say *usually*, and I stand by my statement. Let's be
honest: Do you really think that the arts bring in anything like the
revenues that pro and college sports do? Even judging from the posts to
this thread, I get a clear picture that the answer is no. I am pleased to
hear that some cities are being revitalized by activity in the arts, but
it is my sense that this is the exception, not the rule.
Here in Louisville, the orchestra and opera get by mostly from private
funds from local sources; in contrast, the Kentucky Derby and other
sporting events bring in millions of tourists and millions of dollars.
> Really, this is so damn sick.... the arts need every penny. And the few
> media-manipulating censor-seeking artists that get a couple of thousand
> dollars have turned *any* art subsidization talk into support for wackos.
>
> Get real Ray... you want new CD's? Better CD's? Do you really want to
> see what'll happen without the NEA? Are you a BIG Ormandy fan?
You are assuming quite incorrectly that I oppose public funding of the arts.
In this thread I have repeatedly come out in favor of the NEA, while
expressing some sympathy for the taxpayer who has legitimate reservations.
What I have been opposing is the inflammatory language, whether from the
Right or the Left .
>
>
> Jeff Harrington
Celia Courtright
>
>
>> The attck on the arts is somewhat surprising. Governments subsidize sports,
>> already, in so many ways (baseball antitrust exemption, city financing of
>> ballparks, state college athletic programs). Why focus all this ire on
>> the arts?
>> -Josh
>
>for sports generally pay for themselves with the revenues that they produce,
>either directly or indirectly. The arts, on the other hand, usually cannot
>make a similar claim. Apples and oranges.
>
"small" markets, I can say that the team does _not_ make enough revenues to
support its cost. In Milwaukee, my home area, talk has been going on for years
about building a new stadium, but the people donating money are not interested
in baseball, and are only donating to our minor-league hockey team.
Until last year, I recall that the University of Wisconsin was also undergoing
financial difficulties, because the lackluster performance of its revenue-generating
teams over the course of many years made the teams no longer generate revenue.
The arts receive the exact same benefits as the sports teams, and in general, have
a lot of the same affects on other areas. If I recall correctly, and I may not, Chicago
does not have a ballet, so the main ballet in the area is in Milwaukee. Both athletics
and the arts generate tourist income, increase the "livability" (I don't know the real
word for it) of the city. So its not comparing apples and oranges, but maybe Granny
Smith apples and Red Delicious apples.
Celia
Milo Cooper
John E. Harrington <j...@iris77.biosym.com> wrote:
>From: t...@canopus.as.arizona.edu (Thomas J. Trebisky)
>>> ...
>>>If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it (the NEA)
>>>to exist,
>>>then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
>>>to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
>>>to be there.
>>
>>Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
>>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>>have received NEA funding
>
>Like classical music.
No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
>> (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
>>been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
>>over some of that as well).
>>
>>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
>
>Because in a capitalist society experimentation and the introduction of new
>ideas is discouraged in favor of giving the customer what he wants.
You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
>The market can't demand something if it has never heard of it before.
The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
general public. No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
>>The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
>>in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
>>fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
>
>We can kiss classical music goodbye, then. Get ready for a Golden Age of
>rap music and Rod McCuen.
Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
>>What is this silly discussion doing in r.m.c anyway?
>
>What are you doing participating in a "silly discussion" anyway?
>...
>JH
I should think that he is attempting to disarm the
silliness which the arguments of folly from those of your
ilk have created.
Jeff Harrington
: No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
: cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
: temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
I'll have you know that the *only* survey of new classical figure painting
which has taken place in the past 10 years (which included my spouse's
work!) was funded by the NEA. Now could this show have taken place w/o
NEA funding... no...
Nobody's really interested. That's why the arts - all the arts - from
community orchestras to little arts programs in the middle of nowhere are
crazy dependent on the NEA. Forget those assholes seeking censorship.
That's .02% of your NEA dollars. Real artists doing today's important
work depend on the NEA.
: You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
: encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
: them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
Not in the arts. In today's screwed up art world, we need more than ever
a little grace. Innovation and insight in the arts are not encouraged in
a capitalism-only enviroment, because the arts are are not about making
money.
They're about making people dream. Dream of a better society, a better
future where everybody can have a say - not just talk radio dj's.
Dreamers need a little push from our society to stay afloat. Me, I'm a
conservative (or so people say) composer of new tonal music and I need
every penny I can get to keep my art alive. Working 9-5 and being
innovative and creative and insightful... I'm working my ass off - as
much if not more than my over-paid capitalist neighbors here in Brooklyn
who are rewarded for shuffling other people's money around... (I live in
a very stock-broker populated neighborhood of Brooklyn).
: The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
: Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
: general public. No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
: thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
Wrong... today's art world is based on exposure. Both the visual and
sonic arts need institutions that can feature novel and worthwhile work.
That can risk losing $800.00 on a concert. We're talking hundreds of
dollars here, not even thousands in most cases (per show/concert). Are
you that naive to think that we can throw away another generation of
novel and worthwhile artists while we support B2 bombers????
: Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
: comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
: been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
: and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
No thanks... things have to happen before we can get people
interested. Without NEA support - we'll lose practically all of the
innovative little arts organizations that promote man's (sic) creations.
We don't depend on politics. We depend on the public's love of the new.
That new classical music CD which you're going to go wild over in 10
years just ain't going to happen unless I get a performance from some
little chamber orchestra that gets $3,000.00 a year from the federal
government. Are you that much of a scrooge?
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
PostScript Scores at ftp.gmd.de in music/scores/harrington
Check out BlueStrider for Piano ftp.cs.ruu.nl pub/MIDI/SONGS/MISC/BlueStri.mid
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV - All Days But Thursdays(ABC) on CBS Since 1984 (*)
Steven Correll
Milo Cooper <mdco...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
> You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
Kindly explain MS-DOS. :-)
(It would be more germane to compare the financial success of Andrew
Lloyd Webber with that of Benjamin Britten, but it doesn't quite have the
same zing.)
--
Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == s...@netcom.com
James Alexander Chokey
>encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
Capitalism may encourage innovation for the purpose of wealth-
production-- but frankly, I don't think that art should be created
solely for the purpose of wealth-creation. Nothing is more philistine
than thinking that the primary value of art is its economic value.
That's beside the point, however, since the issue here really is
not capitalism, but the *market*. (The two are not the same, in spite of
the sloppy equation of the two by many.) Markets are great for maximizing
effiencency in the exchange of goods and services-- but they're not that
great for the production of intellectually and aesthetically interesting
works of art.
> Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>and survival.
Oh? The Parthenon-- and indeed the whole Acropolis-- would never
have been built unless Pericles took the funds from the Delian League and
used them to build it. Nor would the Greek tragedies and comedies have
been written were it not for the fact that playwrights were paid by the
city for doing so. Nor would the countless great works of art produced
in Florence during the Renaissance have come into being were it not
for the *extensive* patronage of the Medici. Nor would Michaelangelo's
Sistine Chapel have been created were it not for the patrongage of
the Church. Indeed, if we were to remove from the body of classical
music all works that had been funded by (or in the hope of) some sort of
political patronage, we should be bereft of some the greatest pieces
of music ever written, including the Bach's Brandenburg Concertos,
Handel's Messiah, virtually all of Mozart's repetoire, Wagner's Ring
Cycle, to name only a few drops in the bucket.
For better or for worse, the fact is that the production of
art is dependent on money as well as on the powers of the human spirit.
The same is true for economic investments as well, if you think about
it. You may have a great idea, but if you can't get any money to
patent it, produce it, and market it, then you're not going to be
successful, no matter how great that idea is. Why should you think
it would be any different with art? Patronage (whether public or
private) doesn't guarantee that art will be good-- it just creates
a possibility for the production of art that is more interesting
than can being created under a purely market-based system of artistic
funding.
-- Jim C.
==========================================================================
| James A. Chokey jch...@leland.stanford.edu |
| |
| Alas! Coquettes are but too rare. |
| -- Disraeli |
==========================================================================
Jim Lee
RR> private funds from local sources;
Since you're so familiar with funding for the orchestra in
Louisville, perhaps you'd like to inform everyone that the orchestra
is "getting by" this year _only_ because the orchestra members were
forced to take both a 25% salary cut plus a reduction in the number
of concerts plus a reduction in their hard earned benefits. Get
by, indeed.
* RM 1.4 B0002 * <insert appropriate Biblical carpentry reference>
Francois Velde
>Indeed, if we were to remove from the body of classical
>music all works that had been funded by (or in the hope of) some sort of
>political patronage, we should be bereft of some the greatest pieces
>of music ever written, including the Bach's Brandenburg Concertos,
>Handel's Messiah, virtually all of Mozart's repetoire, Wagner's Ring
>Cycle, to name only a few drops in the bucket.
What does "some sort of political patronage" mean, and how does that
relate to government subsidies? By using terms loosely enough, one
can prove virtually anything. In the case of a public building like
the Parthenon, the public at large obviously enjoyed the results of
a "government program." Music is another matter. When wealthy
patrons, whether they were also politically influential or not,
commissioned works for their private enjoyment, one cannot compare
that to 20th century subsidies. Since rich people who could
afford to patronize artists were also, oftentimes, people
with political influence or patronage, it is tempting to confuse
their purchases of Tafelmusik for their entertainment with modern
subsidies programs, but it is wrong. And examples drawn from opera
are not going to be good examples for your case: since the first
commercial opera-house opened in Venice in 1638, until the
late 19th c., opera was a market-driven activity. The best
examples of musicians successful at making money come from that
genre: Handel, Gluck, Rossini, Verdi. Wagner became Wagner
long before Ludwig II.
In any event, The claim made was that art does not need
government to exist or survive. Those who claim that will probably
not dispute that government, when it gets involved in the arts, makes
some kind of difference; but rattling off a list of publicly
commissioned works of music does not prove that the public
commissions were necessary for these works, or for any works.
Also, examining past examples and trying to determine whether they
are examples of publicly commissioned works is bound to be difficult,
because notions of governments have changed considerably over time.
We would have to agree on a meaningful 16th c. or 18th c. equivalent
to what we nowadays call government. From previous discussions of
this topic on this group, I know that it is not easy (was Nicolas
Esterhazy the 18th c. equivalent of the NEA?)
It would help to frame the question differently: some people believe
that a sufficient standard to decide which art should be produced
is the public's tastes: those tastes can be expressed via the market,
or in other ways ("If Herr Bach doesn't start writing decent music
for Sunday services, he can kiss his job goodbye": that Bach was
a sort of municipal employee doesn't mean his music should be thought
as "publicly subsidized"). Private patronage, or private donations,
are other such examples: whether you please many small ticket-buyers
or one big rich fella doesn't matter.
Others think that there are higher, or
different standards that should be applied: and a subset of those
think that government is in the best position to apply those standards.
This last position is the one that underpins the modern position in
favor of strong subsidies for the arts.
(I said a subset: you could have people who think that art should
be subjected to a different standard, but that there is no practical
way of applying that standard).
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
ve...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
David Pickering
bad for.. by Milo Coo...@crash.cts.co
Here we are getting to the heart of the standard
libertarian/conservative argument. Two points need to be discussed:
first of all, historical evidence disproves your assertion, it wasn't
until the NEA was created in 1965 that arts organizations really started
showing up in areas other than the big cities; secondly, and more
importantly, your argument is based on the assumption that art is merely
a "product" which reacts to market forces in the same way as Twinkies or
beer; I would argue it is not. There is a big difference between music
and the music business.
>
> >The market can't demand something if it has never heard of it before.
>
> The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
> Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
> general public. No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
> thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
On the other hand, artistic innovations are often not appreciated until
many years later. Recall that works now considered brilliant, from
Picasso's "Guernica" to Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" were rejected by
the critics and the masses when they first came out.
>
> >>The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
> >>in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
> >>fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
> >
> >We can kiss classical music goodbye, then. Get ready for a Golden Age of
> >rap music and Rod McCuen.
>
> Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
> comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
> been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
> and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
Were it not for government support by kings and nobles, most of the
popular works of the classical and romantic periods might not ever have
seen the light of day.
Pambooger
>>>Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
>>>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>>>have received NEA funding
>>
>>Like classical music.
>
> No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
>cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
>temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
>
This is the attitude which discourages experimentation and the
introduction of new ideas. A sculpture like that may be considered by
some as art.
>>>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it
anyhow?
>>Because in a capitalist society experimentation and the introduction of new
>>ideas is discouraged in favor of giving the customer what he wants.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
Mr. Cooper refutes his own statement. See comment on garish
sculpture above. That sculpture is innovative and quite possibly
insightful. That is art! But art like that would not be produced if
its production depended solely on a public with attitudes like Mr.
Cooper's. This is the way things are now, to some extent. For
example, there are many excellent twentieth century operas, but how
often do we see them performed? Opera companies need to do the
popular ones much more because they rely in part on ticket sales. The
fact that Shostakovich's Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk is playing at the Met
is probably due in part to government funding. Ticket sales have not
been as good, if a big ad in the NY Times is a sign of that. What are
the chances that they are going to keep this opera for the next
season? I really wanted to go, but was unable to (partially because
tickets are so expensive!), and I may never get to see it, especially
if government funding is cut.
> The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>general public. No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
>thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
> Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
>
If you leave it up to the public, you're really leaving it up
to the rich public. I don't have the means to go out and support art
in a great and influential way. Government funding helps remedy that
situation.
Pam
Gary Schroeder
>Milo Cooper (mdco...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>: You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>: encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>: them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
...and since when has the value of art and music been predicated on its
monetary value? Are you saying that only art which $sells$ is worthwhile?
I guess you must be saying that, since you believe that capitalism is what
causes great art to be generated. I think that's a pretty preposterous notion.
Using your values, no art that was ever controversial would ever have
been made...since it would fail to sell.
Pick an example: how about VanGogh? Only sold one painting in his life
and did most of his work while destitute. His paintings are now recognized
as masterpieces, yet they weren't seen as having any monetary value while
he was alive.
I object to your analogy of art as "product". Product which is useful or
desirable under capitalism is termed profitable...yet, art does not seem
to fit this notion. Many hold art as both useful and desirable although
great art is rarely profitable during an artist's life. How can you explain
this? Might art be an exception to the capitalist dogma that you espouse?
>: The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>: Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>: general public.
The success or failure of art can never be assured. As stated earlier, it is
not simply a "product" or a "device" that can be judged against technical
specifications. While govt funding will not ensure great work, it may give
an artist the opportunity to produce work that was financially beyond their
means. Proper funding may give an artist the backing they need to fully
realize an important dream. That's the kind of thing we can all benefit from.
Success may not be guaranteed, but I'm willing to take that chance. I'd rather
see a fraction of a penny from every tax dollar I send in go towards that
chance than on another military weapon. I'm prepared to get art that I don't
like in the knowlege that I'll get some that I love.
>: No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
>: thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
Common snse statement. No argument.
>: Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>: comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>: been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>: and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
It may not be solely dependent on the govt, no. But, think about how
many works of art might be generated by gov't funding that might
otherwise never be done because of a lack of patronage.
>Without NEA support - we'll lose practically all of the
>innovative little arts organizations that promote man's (sic) creations.
>We don't depend on politics. We depend on the public's love of the new.
>That new classical music CD which you're going to go wild over in 10
>years just ain't going to happen unless I get a performance from some
>little chamber orchestra that gets $3,000.00 a year from the federal
>government. Are you that much of a scrooge?
>Jeff Harrington
I agree completely, Jeff. We have some mighty strange priorities in this
country. While kids in New York city schools are using textbooks that are
30 years old with 50% of the pages missing, we're talking about spending
more money on the military budget. No, thank you. I don't mind at all
that a little of my tax dollar goes towards something as worth while as
NEA funding for the arts. Hey, I thought "piss christ" was ridiculous too,
but that sort of thing is going to happen. Just because you get some art you
don't like dosen't mean that the whole idea of patronage is wrong or
unjustified.
Jason Greshes and her
the NEA, PBS, and NEH that are on the chopping block.
Cutback/elimination of federal funding for museums, including the
Smithsonian, is also on the table.
Guess the Smithsonian better cover-up any exposed breasts in African
exhibits... :)
jason
--
Jason & Jill Greshes |
Philadelphia, PA |
jgre...@netaxs.com |
jgre...@dfw.net
John E. Harrington
>
>>I truly regret the attacks which you describe.
>
>What a shame that they're part of the wave of electoral mean-spiritedness
>we've just encountered. Who among the conservatives has stepped up to
>condemn it in in public?
>
>Oh, sure, we get Bennett speaking out against Prop 187, but does he
>attack the rhetoric that its proponents use? And Christie Whitman
>is shocked, *shocked* to discover that Bob Grant is (gasp) a racist,
>and decides not to do his show anymore. But in general the right-wing
>campaign of slander has been tolerated just fine by all those
>principled office seekers.
Roger:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is Bob Grant and what is the story behind his
being a racist?
regards,
John
Eric Schissel
If i have an account later this week, i'll happily post excerpts from
an issue of FAIR's EXTRA! from various of his shows. You can then tell me
whether he sounds at least somewhat racist...
-eric schissel
(One doozy: that Grant doesn't see why the Coast Guard picks Haitians
trying to get to the US up out of capsized boats- Grant says, as i
recall, that we should just let them drown...
another- that HIV may be afflicting Haiti but "not enough" because there
are still "too many" of them...
)
--
1.The most common mistake of young thieves is stealing complimentary copies.
2.Read misc.activism.progressive. (Std disc).
es...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu Eric Schissel, at least once in a while.
Eric Schissel
Mtsensk being withdrawn (banned?)...
but i'm often amused thinking how some people .here. would react to the
opera, which apparently contains a rape, a murder...
of course, since it's called classical music and is basically tonal-
therefore appealing more than some other arts do to people with more
political clout- Helms et al will probably keep their hands off it, for
the time being.
ah well. just a thought.
-eric schissel
Eric Schissel
sports .loses. money in large quantities, but presumably,
university presidents compare that loss to the expected loss
of money from sports-consumed alums if the sports programs were removed...
when i think of what the music dept. library could do with 10% of
athletic's budget... of course, values being internalized by
previous necessity, they'd probably .still. go on buying more
recordings of Brahms prerecorded works than of un(previously)recorded
Holmboe...
Ted Floyd
> Stalin may have written the article that resulted in Lady Macbeth of
> Mtsensk being withdrawn (banned?)...
Both.
> but i'm often amused thinking how some people .here. would react to the
> opera, which apparently contains a rape, a murder...
Four murders. Plus, gulags, sexuality, and profanity that
would put to shame even the most, ah, progressive of NEA
grant recipients. (By the way, you get a rape and a murder
in just the first *scene* of _Don Giovanni_!)
Anyhow, we'll be able to gauge that reaction next week, when the
Met puts on its first ever performance of _Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk_.
I gather Maria Ewing will be involved...
> of course, since it's called classical music and is basically tonal-
> therefore appealing more than some other arts do to people with more
> political clout- Helms et al will probably keep their hands off it, for
> the time being.
Well, there is one possible problem -- the piece is, after all, by
a Russian/Soviet, and Helms has conveniently forgotten that the
Cold War is over. (And it's rather likely that he's unaware that
there was almost constant tension between Stalin and Shostakovich...)
Ted Floyd <AE...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Ted Floyd
> D03Iu...@crash.cts.com writes:
>> No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
>> cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
>> temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
> This is the attitude which discourages experimentation and the
> introduction of new ideas. A sculpture like that may be considered by
> some as art.
~~~~
So?
That doesn't necessarily make it art.
> Mr. Cooper refutes his own statement. See comment on garish
> sculpture above. That sculpture is innovative and quite possibly
> insightful. That is art!
No, he said it was made of tin foil and crushed cans -- that is hardly
"innovative", and I can't imagine what "insight" you derive from it.
I have not seen the sculpture. Have you? In what innovative manner
are the tin cans assembled? What insight does the tin foil offer? If
*you* think that we're dealing with art, then it is *your* responsibility
to disprove Mr. Cooper's statement. Until then, that is all we have,
and his statement is a rather compelling case *against* this work.
Ted Floyd <AE...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Roger Lustig
>Forgive my ignorance, but who is Bob Grant and what is the story behind his
>being a racist?
Bob Grant is a talk-show host on WABC, 77 AM, New York. He's a right-winger
who loves the coded racism of the last decade ("welfare queens", etc.), and
who has recently gone much forther, referring to African-Americans as "savages"
on many occasions, and referring to Haitian refugees as "subhuman scum."
And it gets worse.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1994Nov21....@princeton.edu>,
>Roger Lustig <ro...@astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>In article <CzLrG...@crash.cts.com> mdco...@crash.cts.com (Milo Cooper) writes:
>>> The retraction of governement funding of art is an is-
>>>sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
>>>creations.
>>Then why haven't the NEA's detractors said so? They say the opposite:
>>punish the NEA for choosing the wrong art. That's what Helms, Dannemeyer,
>>and the rest have said. See the Congressional Record.
> A good way to support a prinicple is to evince its legiti-
>macy; for example, by demonstrating what happens when it is not
>followed. That answers your question.
I don't follow. As far as I can tell, the reaction *has* been primarily
of the ad-hoc type.
>>>The ethic is very simple: the government should not
>>>provide financial support to an artist, whether s/he is favored by
>>>or out of favor with taxpayers. People should be free to give
>>>finance to whatever specific artwork they wish to promote. They
>>>should not be made to pay the governement to determine what is
>>>worthwhile. Period.
>>Does that mean we should fire all the composers, painters, and novelists
>>at the universities, too?
> If they aren't professors or transient special guests, yes.
What's so special about those guests? Are we perhaps privileging
some artistic tastes at the universities, then? Which ones?
Also, why do we have professors who are composing or painting? Is
that like doing research in science?
>>>>It does not, then, seem too unreasonable to expect that the Republican
>>>>victory (which has catapulted such open-minded gentlemen as Jesse Helms
>>>>and Strom Thurmond, former pro-segregation presidential candidate into
>>>>leadership positions) may actually put into practise some of the ideas
>>>>they have been advocating for the last five years.
>>> Such as...? You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid,
>>>as you request of Mr. Wright in the following excerpt; I don't
>>>care to grope for your arguments.
>>"Homosexuality is an orientation the way alcoholism is an orientation."
>> -- Newt Gingrich
> That quote doesn't prove to me that promotion of long-held
>beliefs upon being elected is an exclusively Republican/conserva-
>tive practice.
No, but it's emblematic of more than a few of the beliefs.
>>> There is no utter substitute for experience, and there
>>>are enough experienced individuals about that university elit-
>>>ists are superfluous.
>>In other words, expertise *disqualifies* one from discussion? How odd.
> Pffft, please explain to me how you drew that little
>aphorism from my statement. This ought to be good.
Pffft, yourself. "University elitists" is a trash term, utterly
devoid of any meaning other than insult. Do you suppose that
people whose job happens to be university teaching are somehow
uniquely devoid of "experience", however defined?
>>PS: what did Gingrich do before he ran for congress?
> Oh, I see, this is an example of more convenient and
>abrupt liberal reasoning. When I wrote "university elitists,"
>your mind simplified that to "anyone with lots of vicarious
>experience."
More insult, I see. (For that matter, what makes me a "liberal"--
and how do you conveniently define *that* this week?) Yes,
Gingrich's "experience" is indeed a convenient argument; between
the campus and the Congress, his "experience" is indeed something
to marvel at.
>>>The only reason that one attends an in-
>>>stitution of learning rather than electing for the greater
>>>teacher of experience is that the latter is usually impracti-
>>>cal.
>>Right, as though *any* amount of street learning would teach one
>>particle physics.
> Didn't I just say that? Yes, Einstein, learning parti-
>cle physics in laboratories is impractical versus university
>tutelage. If I learn the science in the lab, as unlikely as
>that may be, then my experience will have provided me with in-
>formation unavailable to those who have gathered general infor-
>mation from college professors. It is by doing that any of us
>are provided with insight, far more so than by data accrual.
>Why do you suppose that scientific pedagogy includes actual lab-
>oratory activity?
What forms of experience are you suggesting should *not* be
encouraged at the university?
>>>What sane person prefers the various degrees of inexper-
>>>ience had by one man over the single firm grasps of disciplines
>>>had by others? For the attainment of professional status, would
>>>you rather be taught by someone who, having read several relative
>>>volumes and having ruminated in solitude for many a day on your
>>>field of interest, was possessed of much vicarious knowledge, or
>>>would you rather be informed by an actual, accredited, working
>>>professional? You can take up a bag full of immature fruits,
>>>not knowing what you will get but expecting nothing appreciable,
>>>or you can take up many bags, each of which contains a single
>>>ripe, plump, and tasty item. While the former course has its
>>>merits -- one could get lucky and have much good food in fewer
>>>sacks, or one could happen upon a most rare or unique fruit --
>>>it is ultimately the less reliable of the two methods toward an
>>>end of satisfaction, and as such, should be utilized for experi-
>>>ment, not everyday practice. One must first go with what is
>>>most certain. That is the concept of Republicanism which Demo-
>>>crats never fail to miss.
>>Actually, it sounds more like Mao to me. But no matter--it's
>>still prfoundly anti-intellectual, and completely full of shit
>>to boot; just what is this "end of satisfaction," and why do you
>>suppose that there's one approqch that works best in all cases?
> Is Mao anti-intellectual, is that your claim?
No. YOU are anti-intellectual.
> The "end of satisfaction," quite patently, is the attain-
>ment of a predetermined goal. In the above scenario, that goal
>is the consumption of a tasty fruit. A goal more relevant to
>this discussion is the positive edification of humanity by ex-
>posure to art.
Is that the only goal of the enterprises we've been considering?
> What I find entirely reprehensible about so-called "intel-
>lectuals" and liberals and their ilk
What I find entirely reprehensible is this stupid demonization
of collective groups that you'd be hard-pressed to define.
Does the word "liberal" actually mean anything to you, or is
it a convenient piece of mud?
>is that they insist on scru-
>tinizing anything of their interest to the point that they either
Who does this? Name some names.
>(a) aggrandize its banal aspects, and so appreciate and advocate
>the elements of it which are unworthy of such attention, or (b) man-
And you've decided which elements *are* worthy of attention, no
doubt by *not* paying attention to it in the first place...
>age to detect and extol aspects of the item which do not actually
>exist.
Existence being another attribute that scrutiny only obscures.
Again, you're arguing that expertise is a disqualification.
>Much of this, I suspect, is due to any attitude from indif-
>ference to rejection of traditional beliefs.
On what grounds do you suspect that? And what's so special
about traditional beliefs? (And what makes you think they're
not popular among the people you feel the need to turn into
bogeymen?)
>That some of these
>traditonal beliefs may actually find support in truth is missed;
Which ones? Give example. Also, let us know how you determine "truth."
>it is enough for an "intellectual" or today's liberal to know that
>they are widely-held and/or based on simple logic, that s/he may
>discard them altogether. It is, I suggest to you, active blindness.l~
Again, invective without content. Most intellectuals do nothing of
the sort; and many people even you wouldn't care to call "liberals"
do indeed have such attitudes.
But then, you seem to know all about Truth; perhaps *you* should be
teaching all the courses, doing all the research.
When did you find all this out?
> As for the question "why do you suppose that there's one
>approach that works best in all cases," just stop what you are
>doing, Roger, and read that inquiry. How can more than one ap-
>proach be best?
No, *you* read it. The "in all cases" part seems to have eluded
you.
As to how more than one approach can be best, note that in most
situations of the kind we're discussing, there's no way of telling
which way is uniquesly best, or even which way of asking the
question is best.
>What does "best" mean? "Best" is an exclusive adjective, I'm afraid.
Now it's my turn to call *you* Einstein. "Best" is also an
adjective with limited meaning; in the context of art, it doesn't
have a unique meaning. Is one Beethoven symphony better than another?
Is one of them the best? If so, why do we play the others?
Is one system of esthetics the best? If so, why do we study the
others? How do we determine which system is the best?
I do want to know this, especially from someone with a handle on
Truth.
>>>Insight is marvelous, but it must
>>>play second violin to the lessons of history. And history is
>>>experience.
>>But *knowledge* of history is knowledge. And insight. Historical
>>learning without insight is nothing at all/
> Will you learn more about space travel by reading of it
>rather than participating in it? We agree that insight is cru-
>cial. However, my method of its attainment is more reliable
>than yours. Mine is hands-on. Yours is vicarious. We humans
In all cases? What makes you think that music--the thing we were
discussing, remember?--isn't practiced in universities? For that
matter, lots of things are practiced there.
Of course, you wanted to fire the composers and novelists from
the academy, so I'm not sure *what* your position is anymore.
>only put up with your method because it is more practical, but
>if we could, we'd go with experience every time. For example,
>promotion of art via government (NEA) makes for vicarious selec-
>tion of just what art is worthwhile. Direct and selective public
>support of art requires, by its very nature, that people in-
>vestigate art -- that they get their hands on it, to whatever de-
>gree (which is always greater than the entirely passive method
>you promote) -- in order to support it.
How is my method "entirely passive"? The two are rather similar.
Nor is the selection any more vicarious than that done by, say,
private foundations--and if you don't think *they* have a major
effect on what we see and hear, light up a Philip Morris.
>>>>> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check the
>>>>> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
>>>>> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will find a
>>>>> high percentage of Republicans.
>>>>This has little bearing on the issue we were discussing. These people who
>>>>generously send their checks in to public radio stations and local
>>>>symphonies may still have elected representatives in Congress who intend
>>>>to slash government spending.
>>> It seems to me that such individuals have opted to de-
>>>cide for themselves what they will advance. Works for me. The
>>>goverment certainly doesn't comprise omniscient gods. Oh, how
>>But you seem to be, because you realize that nobody really needs all
>>that book-larnin.
> We need it to a point. We don't need it to the exclusion
>or degradation of experience.
Something that you've invented as a stick to beat anyone else with.
Could you show me an example of this "degradation of experience"?
>>>liberals would rant if all of the art that the government sup-
>>>ports were of a religious bent.
>>You mean, like Andres Serrano? A devout Catholic, that man, and it
>>shows in his work. FYI, many NEA-funded projects have a religious
>>bent, starting with all the choral works...
> I said ALL of the art.
Oh, well, that's different, then.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1994Nov28.2...@biosym.com>,
>John E. Harrington <j...@iris77.biosym.com> wrote:
>>From: t...@canopus.as.arizona.edu (Thomas J. Trebisky)
>>>>If the elected leaders of the country AND the public do not wish it (the NEA)
>>>>to exist,
>>>>then it is wrong for it to exist (in a democracy). People should not be forced
>>>>to pay for the NEA if both the representatives and the populace do not wish it
>>>>to be there.
>>>Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
>>>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>>>have received NEA funding
>>Like classical music.
> No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
>cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
>temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
Indeed, maybe not. How much NEA funding has *ever* gone to *all*
the programs that you don't like?
>>> (but then some pretty screw-loose science has
>>>been funded by the NSF too, and we are tasting anti-intellectual backlash
>>>over some of that as well).
>>>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it anyhow?
>>Because in a capitalist society experimentation and the introduction of new
>>ideas is discouraged in favor of giving the customer what he wants.
> You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
Up to a point. Art isn't always easily commodified.
>>The market can't demand something if it has never heard of it before.
> The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>general public.
Was that the goal?
>No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
>thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
On the other hand, "luxury" goods often operate on exactly that
principle. (Some would argue that the art market works that way
too these days--that what one admires in new, pricey art is the
money. Hard to do with music, which doesn't ever cost *that*
much to produce...)
>>>The government doesn't have any money. The government is just you and me
>>>in spendable form :-) If art cannot stand on it's own two legs, let it
>>>fall. I guess I am just an unashamed capitalist after all.
>>We can kiss classical music goodbye, then. Get ready for a Golden Age of
>>rap music and Rod McCuen.
> Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals.
What's nihilistic about it? Overstated, perhaps; even unfair. But
nihilistic?
>Great art has never
>been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
Try reading a bit of history. Who paid for all the great music
of the past? Who paid the orchestras? Hint: Established Church.
Another Hint: Aristocracy. Further Hint: state-sponsored orchestras
and opera houses.
>>>What is this silly discussion doing in r.m.c anyway?
>>What are you doing participating in a "silly discussion" anyway?
> I should think that he is attempting to disarm the
>silliness which the arguments of folly from those of your
>ilk have created.
More "ilk," eh? Well, there are a lot of ilks about; and far
too few historians.
Roger
Milo Cooper
Gary Schroeder <schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> wrote:
>In article <D03sp...@dorsai.org>, idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) says:
>>Milo Cooper (mdco...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>
>>: You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>>: encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>>: them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
>
>...and since when has the value of art and music been predicated on its
>monetary value? Are you saying that only art which $sells$ is worthwhile?
No, I'm saying that great art dismissed by a general pop-
ulace existed well before capitalism enjoyed government implemen-
taion, and that it is therefore erroneous to cite capitalism as
The Great Obstacle of the production of fine artwork.
>I guess you must be saying that, since you believe that capitalism is what
>causes great art to be generated. I think that's a pretty preposterous notion.
>Using your values, no art that was ever controversial would ever have
>been made...since it would fail to sell.
What, controversial nature = laudability? Why should any-
one seek controversy in art for his/her satisfaction? Good art can
be either controversial or not controversial. I must insist that
there is a more fundamental quality of great artwork than its
inflammatory capabilities. Change is not exclusively unpleasant.
>Pick an example: how about VanGogh? Only sold one painting in his life
>and did most of his work while destitute. His paintings are now recognized
>as masterpieces, yet they weren't seen as having any monetary value while
>he was alive.
Right, it survived despite the artist's destitution and
lack of finer public recognition, which wouldn't have been nur-
tured one iota had the people been forced to pay for his works.
What kind of artist is anyone if s/he relies on the government to
support his/her hobby? I say that career artists of today (of
which group I am one) should follow the examples of established
masters like Van Gogh and stop crying for the general public
to baby them. A real artist will not stop making art simply
because Uncle Sam is not doling him/her the public's ducats.
>I object to your analogy of art as "product". Product which is useful or
>desirable under capitalism is termed profitable...yet, art does not seem
>to fit this notion. Many hold art as both useful and desirable although
>great art is rarely profitable during an artist's life. How can you explain
>this? Might art be an exception to the capitalist dogma that you espouse?
If it is, then why would you request that the government
of a capitalist nation pay for it? Don't ask me this nonsense.
>>: The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>>: Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>>: general public.
>
>The success or failure of art can never be assured.
...therefore, the public should pay for its support??
> As stated earlier, it is
>not simply a "product" or a "device" that can be judged against technical
>specifications. While govt funding will not ensure great work, it may give
>an artist the opportunity to produce work that was financially beyond their
>means. Proper funding may give an artist the backing they need to fully
>realize an important dream. That's the kind of thing we can all benefit from.
And as _I_ stated earlier, why should anyone depend
on the government for this financial support? What evidence
is there that only the almighty government is a panacea against
a landscape of flavorless artistic creations? It is a plan
of great folly to embark upon a career as an artist with an
expectation of government sustenance. What is more, since you
defy the ability of anyone to judge art objectively and fair-
ly by technical means -- the only means proper in deciding
who gets how much tax cash -- then you cannot expect any sane
person, rich or poor, to throw his/her money at Washington
D.C. Las Vegas-style, in the hope that the great roulette
wheel called NEA-arbitrament will actually finance something
worth financing. Most sensible people, such as myself, do
not care to gamble so. What we should do is let people like
you go right ahead and give your cash to the politicians, while
the rest of us support art as we, as individuals rather than
media of monetary transaction, see fit.
>Success may not be guaranteed, but I'm willing to take that chance. I'd rather
>see a fraction of a penny from every tax dollar I send in go towards that
>chance than on another military weapon. I'm prepared to get art that I don't
>like in the knowlege that I'll get some that I love.
You mean, the HOPE that you will get some that you love.
This is a superb example of the old "let us throw money at the
problem" mentality, and what makes it tick. I say that's a bunk
tenet, frankly, and even if I lived by it myself, I would NOT
suggest that everyone else be made to live under such a random
rule, especially where their money is concerned. Artistic success
is ultimately the responsibility of the artist, not the public at
large. I commend those artists, such as the great Ludwig Van
Beethoven, who stuck with their trade without demanding a portion
of everyone else's salary to sustain them in their feats, and who
realized that the magnificence of great art is of such character
that it quite often takes time, even beyond the life of its creat-
or, to attain its greatest effect upon the public.
>>: No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
>>: thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
>
>Common snse statement. No argument.
>
>>: Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>>: comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>>: been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>>: and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
>
>It may not be solely dependent on the govt, no. But, think about how
>many works of art might be generated by gov't funding that might
>otherwise never be done because of a lack of patronage.
Well now, that says it all, does it not? Yeah, let's
try something based on a theory of luck, with everyone else's
money, and let's just see what we get.
How impractical and lazy. All we need is a country
full of government-dependent artists with no fear of loss of
funds. I can just smell those masterpieces now. Someone
call Mozart and tell him that he's about to meet his match.
>>Without NEA support - we'll lose practically all of the
>>innovative little arts organizations that promote man's creations.
>>We don't depend on politics. We depend on the public's love of the new.
>>That new classical music CD which you're going to go wild over in 10
>>years just ain't going to happen unless I get a performance from some
>>little chamber orchestra that gets $3,000.00 a year from the federal
>>government. Are you that much of a scrooge?
>>Jeff Harrington
>
>I agree completely, Jeff. We have some mighty strange priorities in this
>country. While kids in New York city schools are using textbooks that are
>30 years old with 50% of the pages missing, we're talking about spending
>more money on the military budget. No, thank you. I don't mind at all
>that a little of my tax dollar goes towards something as worth while as
>NEA funding for the arts. Hey, I thought "piss christ" was ridiculous too,
>but that sort of thing is going to happen. Just because you get some art you
>don't like dosen't mean that the whole idea of patronage is wrong or
>unjustified.
But since we may get a little art that we like, then
it IS justified, is that where you logic has taken you?
My logic tells me that great art is the product of
an independent artist. Motivation is suppressed by uncondition-
al support. As you yourself have written, artwork defies the
capitalistic definition of "product," so it defies technical
evaluation in the determination of its monetary value. Be-
sides, the NEA money would be supplied before the completion
of the work, so any sort of appraisal at all could be based
only on an artist's prior works, and that, too, is a weak
method of judgment, since the innovative or "controversial" art
which you so desire is, by definition, entirely inestimable.
Enough of this desperate philosophy of dice-rolling.
sar...@wbb.com
IR>In article <Czzu2...@crash.cts.com> mdco...@crash.cts.com (Milo Cooper)
IR>writes:
IR>>In article <1994Nov21....@princeton.edu>,
IR>>Roger Lustig <ro...@astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
IR>>>In article <CzLrG...@crash.cts.com> mdco...@crash.cts.com (Milo Cooper)
IR>writes:
IR>>>> The retraction of governement funding of art is an is-
IR>>>>sue of priniciple, not an ad hoc reaction to tax support of vile
IR>>>>creations.
IR>>>Then why haven't the NEA's detractors said so? They say the opposite:
IR>>>punish the NEA for choosing the wrong art. That's what Helms, Dannemeyer,
IR>>>and the rest have said. See the Congressional Record.
IR>> A good way to support a prinicple is to evince its legiti-
IR>>macy; for example, by demonstrating what happens when it is not
IR>>followed. That answers your question.
IR>I don't follow. As far as I can tell, the reaction *has* been primarily
IR>of the ad-hoc type.
IR>>>>The ethic is very simple: the government should not
IR>>>>provide financial support to an artist, whether s/he is favored by
IR>>>>or out of favor with taxpayers. People should be free to give
IR>>>>finance to whatever specific artwork they wish to promote. They
IR>>>>should not be made to pay the governement to determine what is
IR>>>>worthwhile. Period.
IR>>>Does that mean we should fire all the composers, painters, and novelists
IR>>>at the universities, too?
IR>> If they aren't professors or transient special guests, yes.
IR>What's so special about those guests? Are we perhaps privileging
IR>some artistic tastes at the universities, then? Which ones?
IR>Also, why do we have professors who are composing or painting? Is
IR>that like doing research in science?
IR>>>>>It does not, then, seem too unreasonable to expect that the Republican
IR>>>>>victory (which has catapulted such open-minded gentlemen as Jesse Helms
IR>>>>>and Strom Thurmond, former pro-segregation presidential candidate into
IR>>>>>leadership positions) may actually put into practise some of the ideas
IR>>>>>they have been advocating for the last five years.
IR>>>> Such as...? You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid,
IR>>>>as you request of Mr. Wright in the following excerpt; I don't
IR>>>>care to grope for your arguments.
IR>>>"Homosexuality is an orientation the way alcoholism is an orientation."
IR>>> -- Newt Gingrich
IR>> That quote doesn't prove to me that promotion of long-held
IR>>beliefs upon being elected is an exclusively Republican/conserva-
IR>>tive practice.
IR>No, but it's emblematic of more than a few of the beliefs.
IR>>>> There is no utter substitute for experience, and there
IR>>>>are enough experienced individuals about that university elit-
IR>>>>ists are superfluous.
IR>>>In other words, expertise *disqualifies* one from discussion? How odd.
IR>> Pffft, please explain to me how you drew that little
IR>>aphorism from my statement. This ought to be good.
IR>Pffft, yourself. "University elitists" is a trash term, utterly
IR>devoid of any meaning other than insult. Do you suppose that
IR>people whose job happens to be university teaching are somehow
IR>uniquely devoid of "experience", however defined?
IR>>>PS: what did Gingrich do before he ran for congress?
IR>> Oh, I see, this is an example of more convenient and
IR>>abrupt liberal reasoning. When I wrote "university elitists,"
IR>>your mind simplified that to "anyone with lots of vicarious
IR>>experience."
IR>More insult, I see. (For that matter, what makes me a "liberal"--
IR>and how do you conveniently define *that* this week?) Yes,
IR>Gingrich's "experience" is indeed a convenient argument; between
IR>the campus and the Congress, his "experience" is indeed something
IR>to marvel at.
IR>>>>The only reason that one attends an in-
IR>>>>stitution of learning rather than electing for the greater
IR>>>>teacher of experience is that the latter is usually impracti-
IR>>>>cal.
IR>>>Right, as though *any* amount of street learning would teach one
IR>>>particle physics.
IR>> Didn't I just say that? Yes, Einstein, learning parti-
IR>>cle physics in laboratories is impractical versus university
IR>>tutelage. If I learn the science in the lab, as unlikely as
IR>>that may be, then my experience will have provided me with in-
IR>>formation unavailable to those who have gathered general infor-
IR>>mation from college professors. It is by doing that any of us
IR>>are provided with insight, far more so than by data accrual.
IR>>Why do you suppose that scientific pedagogy includes actual lab-
IR>>oratory activity?
IR>What forms of experience are you suggesting should *not* be
IR>encouraged at the university?
IR>>>>What sane person prefers the various degrees of inexper-
IR>>>>ience had by one man over the single firm grasps of disciplines
IR>>>>had by others? For the attainment of professional status, would
IR>>>>you rather be taught by someone who, having read several relative
IR>>>>volumes and having ruminated in solitude for many a day on your
IR>>>>field of interest, was possessed of much vicarious knowledge, or
IR>>>>would you rather be informed by an actual, accredited, working
IR>>>>professional? You can take up a bag full of immature fruits,
IR>>>>not knowing what you will get but expecting nothing appreciable,
IR>>>>or you can take up many bags, each of which contains a single
IR>>>>ripe, plump, and tasty item. While the former course has its
IR>>>>merits -- one could get lucky and have much good food in fewer
IR>>>>sacks, or one could happen upon a most rare or unique fruit --
IR>>>>it is ultimately the less reliable of the two methods toward an
IR>>>>end of satisfaction, and as such, should be utilized for experi-
IR>>>>ment, not everyday practice. One must first go with what is
IR>>>>most certain. That is the concept of Republicanism which Demo-
IR>>>>crats never fail to miss.
IR>>>Actually, it sounds more like Mao to me. But no matter--it's
IR>>>still prfoundly anti-intellectual, and completely full of shit
IR>>>to boot; just what is this "end of satisfaction," and why do you
IR>>>suppose that there's one approqch that works best in all cases?
IR>> Is Mao anti-intellectual, is that your claim?
IR>No. YOU are anti-intellectual.
IR>> The "end of satisfaction," quite patently, is the attain-
IR>>ment of a predetermined goal. In the above scenario, that goal
IR>>is the consumption of a tasty fruit. A goal more relevant to
IR>>this discussion is the positive edification of humanity by ex-
IR>>posure to art.
IR>Is that the only goal of the enterprises we've been considering?
IR>> What I find entirely reprehensible about so-called "intel-
IR>>lectuals" and liberals and their ilk
IR>What I find entirely reprehensible is this stupid demonization
IR>of collective groups that you'd be hard-pressed to define.
IR>Does the word "liberal" actually mean anything to you, or is
IR>it a convenient piece of mud?
IR>>is that they insist on scru-
IR>>tinizing anything of their interest to the point that they either
IR>Who does this? Name some names.
IR>>(a) aggrandize its banal aspects, and so appreciate and advocate
IR>>the elements of it which are unworthy of such attention, or (b) man-
IR>And you've decided which elements *are* worthy of attention, no
IR>doubt by *not* paying attention to it in the first place...
IR>>age to detect and extol aspects of the item which do not actually
IR>>exist.
IR>Existence being another attribute that scrutiny only obscures.
IR>Again, you're arguing that expertise is a disqualification.
IR>>Much of this, I suspect, is due to any attitude from indif-
IR>>ference to rejection of traditional beliefs.
IR>On what grounds do you suspect that? And what's so special
IR>about traditional beliefs? (And what makes you think they're
IR>not popular among the people you feel the need to turn into
IR>bogeymen?)
IR>>That some of these
IR>>traditonal beliefs may actually find support in truth is missed;
IR>Which ones? Give example. Also, let us know how you determine "truth."
IR>>it is enough for an "intellectual" or today's liberal to know that
IR>>they are widely-held and/or based on simple logic, that s/he may
IR>>discard them altogether. It is, I suggest to you, active blindness.l~
IR>Again, invective without content. Most intellectuals do nothing of
IR>the sort; and many people even you wouldn't care to call "liberals"
IR>do indeed have such attitudes.
IR>But then, you seem to know all about Truth; perhaps *you* should be
IR>teaching all the courses, doing all the research.
IR>When did you find all this out?
IR>> As for the question "why do you suppose that there's one
IR>>approach that works best in all cases," just stop what you are
IR>>doing, Roger, and read that inquiry. How can more than one ap-
IR>>proach be best?
IR>No, *you* read it. The "in all cases" part seems to have eluded
IR>you.
IR>As to how more than one approach can be best, note that in most
IR>situations of the kind we're discussing, there's no way of telling
IR>which way is uniquesly best, or even which way of asking the
IR>question is best.
IR>>What does "best" mean? "Best" is an exclusive adjective, I'm afraid.
IR>Now it's my turn to call *you* Einstein. "Best" is also an
IR>adjective with limited meaning; in the context of art, it doesn't
IR>have a unique meaning. Is one Beethoven symphony better than another?
IR>Is one of them the best? If so, why do we play the others?
IR>Is one system of esthetics the best? If so, why do we study the
IR>others? How do we determine which system is the best?
IR>I do want to know this, especially from someone with a handle on
IR>Truth.
IR>>>>Insight is marvelous, but it must
IR>>>>play second violin to the lessons of history. And history is
IR>>>>experience.
IR>>>But *knowledge* of history is knowledge. And insight. Historical
IR>>>learning without insight is nothing at all/
IR>> Will you learn more about space travel by reading of it
IR>>rather than participating in it? We agree that insight is cru-
IR>>cial. However, my method of its attainment is more reliable
IR>>than yours. Mine is hands-on. Yours is vicarious. We humans
IR>In all cases? What makes you think that music--the thing we were
IR>discussing, remember?--isn't practiced in universities? For that
IR>matter, lots of things are practiced there.
IR>Of course, you wanted to fire the composers and novelists from
IR>the academy, so I'm not sure *what* your position is anymore.
IR>>only put up with your method because it is more practical, but
IR>>if we could, we'd go with experience every time. For example,
IR>>promotion of art via government (NEA) makes for vicarious selec-
IR>>tion of just what art is worthwhile. Direct and selective public
IR>>support of art requires, by its very nature, that people in-
IR>>vestigate art -- that they get their hands on it, to whatever de-
IR>>gree (which is always greater than the entirely passive method
IR>>you promote) -- in order to support it.
IR>How is my method "entirely passive"? The two are rather similar.
IR>Nor is the selection any more vicarious than that done by, say,
IR>private foundations--and if you don't think *they* have a major
IR>effect on what we see and hear, light up a Philip Morris.
IR>>>>>> When it comes to supporting the world of art and music, if you check t
IR>>>>>> credentials of those who attend he concerts and, most importantly,
IR>>>>>> support the arts with grants and contributions, I suspect you will fin
IR>a
IR>>>>>> high percentage of Republicans.
IR>>>>>This has little bearing on the issue we were discussing. These people w
IR>>>>>generously send their checks in to public radio stations and local
IR>>>>>symphonies may still have elected representatives in Congress who intend
IR>>>>>to slash government spending.
IR>>>> It seems to me that such individuals have opted to de-
IR>>>>cide for themselves what they will advance. Works for me. The
IR>>>>goverment certainly doesn't comprise omniscient gods. Oh, how
IR>>>But you seem to be, because you realize that nobody really needs all
IR>>>that book-larnin.
IR>> We need it to a point. We don't need it to the exclusion
IR>>or degradation of experience.
IR>Something that you've invented as a stick to beat anyone else with.
IR>Could you show me an example of this "degradation of experience"?
IR>>>>liberals would rant if all of the art that the government sup-
IR>>>>ports were of a religious bent.
IR>>>You mean, like Andres Serrano? A devout Catholic, that man, and it
IR>>>shows in his work. FYI, many NEA-funded projects have a religious
IR>>>bent, starting with all the choral works...
IR>> I said ALL of the art.
IR>Oh, well, that's different, then.
IR>Roger
YOU REALLY NEED TO GET A LIFE ROGER.
Milo Cooper
>In article <D03Iu...@crash.cts.com>,
>Milo Cooper <mdco...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>
>>>>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>>>>have received NEA funding
>>>
>>>Like classical music.
>>
>> No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
>>cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
>>temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
>>
>introduction of new ideas. A sculpture like that may be considered by
>some as art.
Let the artist take the chance, not the public. Better
yet, let's just have the monkey throw it together, it'd be much
cheaper. All we'd have to buy then are a bunch of Chiquitas.
Experimentation is not only fine, but essential to the
arts. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC. Mozart, Beetho-
ven, and Haydn (to name a few) all had to produce "commercial" art
to sustain themselves, yet they still managed to write masterpieces
for which the government would not have paid. Given this, I have
to believe that the ingredients for the production of a masterwork
do not include government financing. Meanwhile, such financing
assures more crap than beauty, and fosters a lazy dependency on
money forcibly drawn from the purse of one's neighbor.
>>>>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it
>anyhow?
>
>>>Because in a capitalist society experimentation and the introduction of new
>>>ideas is discouraged in favor of giving the customer what he wants.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>>encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>>them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
>
> Mr. Cooper refutes his own statement. See comment on garish
>sculpture above. That sculpture is innovative and quite possibly
>insightful. That is art!
Rubbish. Just because something is new or avant garde,
that does not make it any more "quite possibly insightful" than
anything randomly produced. I can write a computer program that
churns out billions of pictures with pixels of random color val-
ue; whither the insight in those? People, especially males, can
unearth what they call innovation and insight from an incoherent
mess when there is, in fact, none to be had, especially if they've
been forced to pay for it. If the government assures an artist
that s/he will receive cash for a work, can you say with surety
that the promise of funds will not affect the actual production
of the artwork, that it will never be hastily conceived or real-
ized, that the money in itself, in its certainty of receipt, will
not take on an attractiveness of its own? Dangle a carrot before
a camel, and its objective is the obtainment of the carrot,
not reaching a destination which you have in mind. On the other
hand, if a camel wants to be someplace, then the absence of a
carrot in front of it will not suppress its efforts to get there
-- unless it has come to rely on carrots to ignite its motivations.
You people have swallowed hook, line and sinker yet another super-
fluous dependency that the government has managed to fabricate.
This newsgroup is soaked with the liberal, "intellectual,"
pro-avant garde mentality which assigns plaudits to innovation
in concurrent disregard for art's truest function: the edifica-
tion of humanity. To this end, the fundamental aspects of human-
kind must be observed. When an expression as effective as Beet-
hoven's Ninth symphony or Gyorgy Ligeti's _Requiem_ or Arvo Part's
_Miserere_ is unearthed, other artists must acknowledge it and
incorporate such a finding in the historically evolutionary, NOT
REVOLUTIONARY, process known as art. It is plain that government
(i.e. PUBLIC) support of art is unnecessary, as many great works
have been produced without such. It is handy, but masterpieces
produced under supporter grudge take longer to appreciate by
these supporters (i.e. the PUBLIC) than art independently made,
especially if other publicly-funded artists are producing worth-
less works at the same time.
> But art like that would not be produced if
>its production depended solely on a public with attitudes like Mr.
>Cooper's. This is the way things are now, to some extent. For
>example, there are many excellent twentieth century operas, but how
>often do we see them performed? Opera companies need to do the
>popular ones much more because they rely in part on ticket sales. The
>fact that Shostakovich's Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk is playing at the Met
>is probably due in part to government funding. Ticket sales have not
>been as good, if a big ad in the NY Times is a sign of that. What are
>the chances that they are going to keep this opera for the next
>season? I really wanted to go, but was unable to (partially because
>tickets are so expensive!), and I may never get to see it, especially
>if government funding is cut.
You want to take the easy way out and demand that
the public uphold art, instead of deriving other non-coercive
and educational means for its subsistence.
>> The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>>Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>>general public. No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
>>thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
>
>> Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>>comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>>been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>>and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
>>
> If you leave it up to the public, you're really leaving it up
>to the rich public. I don't have the means to go out and support art
>in a great and influential way. Government funding helps remedy that
>situation.
>
>Pam
If lots of people like to watch soap operas and they
feel that that industry will suffer mightily without govern-
ment funding, should the rest of us be made to pay for further
episodes of _As the World Turns_?
Roger Lustig
>96...@williams.edu (Pambooger) writes:
>> D03Iu...@crash.cts.com writes:
>>> No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
>>> cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
>>> temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
>> This is the attitude which discourages experimentation and the
>> introduction of new ideas. A sculpture like that may be considered by
>> some as art.
>So?
>That doesn't necessarily make it art.
What *does* make it art, Ted? We've been asking you similar questions
for a while, and all we get is pronouncements. What separates art from
non-art? What separates "good music" from "bad music"?
And how can we tell?
>> Mr. Cooper refutes his own statement. See comment on garish
>> sculpture above. That sculpture is innovative and quite possibly
>> insightful. That is art!
>No, he said it was made of tin foil and crushed cans -- that is hardly
>"innovative", and I can't imagine what "insight" you derive from it.
a) Your imagination is your problem.
b) So is your critique of a work you haven't seen; much like your
dismissing all of Rossini without having heard any of the great
works the composer wrote.
c) Is the choice of medium the only possible locus of innovation?
Surely one can be innovative using *any* materials.
>I have not seen the sculpture. Have you? In what innovative manner
>are the tin cans assembled? What insight does the tin foil offer? If
Good questions. Why are we describing a non-existent, straw-man work
of art?
>*you* think that we're dealing with art, then it is *your* responsibility
>to disprove Mr. Cooper's statement.
No. Since the work doesn't actually exist, we must take it for what it
is: a polemical move in a discussion of what "art" means. What does it
mean?
>Until then, that is all we have,
>and his statement is a rather compelling case *against* this work.
What work? And what could possibly be compelling about a critique of
an art-work that the critic hasn't seen?
Roger
Jeff Harrington
: In article <D074...@sun10.sep.bnl.gov>,
: Gary Schroeder <schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> wrote:
: >In article <D03sp...@dorsai.org>, idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) says:
: >>Without NEA support - we'll lose practically all of the
: >>innovative little arts organizations that promote man's creations.
: >>We don't depend on politics. We depend on the public's love of the new.
: >>That new classical music CD which you're going to go wild over in 10
: >>years just ain't going to happen unless I get a performance from some
: >>little chamber orchestra that gets $3,000.00 a year from the federal
: >>government. Are you that much of a scrooge?
: >>Jeff Harrington
: >
: >I agree completely, Jeff. We have some mighty strange priorities in this
: >country. While kids in New York city schools are using textbooks that are
: >30 years old with 50% of the pages missing, we're talking about spending
: >more money on the military budget. No, thank you. I don't mind at all
: >that a little of my tax dollar goes towards something as worth while as
: >NEA funding for the arts. Hey, I thought "piss christ" was ridiculous too,
: >but that sort of thing is going to happen. Just because you get some art you
: >don't like dosen't mean that the whole idea of patronage is wrong or
: >unjustified.
: But since we may get a little art that we like, then
: it IS justified, is that where you logic has taken you?
You're exaggerating what I said. Again, Milo, we're talking *seed*
money, not any god damn full funding of every crummy little experimental
arts group.
And just for the record, do you feel that the fact that the military arts
organization - the BAND - gets 5 times (if I remember correctly) the NEA
budget is fair? How does having a bunch of half-assed brass players
marching around enhance our capitalist efficiency? :)
: My logic tells me that great art is the product of
: an independent artist.
That's not logic, that's common sense.
: Motivation is suppressed by uncondition-
: al support.
You're exaggerating, Milos - rhetorically correct, I suppose - but still
these are not trivial matters for us artists.
Nobody gets unconditional full funding of every stupid art project they
want.
: As you yourself have written, artwork defies the
: capitalistic definition of "product," so it defies technical
: evaluation in the determination of its monetary value. Be-
: sides, the NEA money would be supplied before the completion
: of the work, so any sort of appraisal at all could be based
: only on an artist's prior works, and that, too, is a weak
: method of judgment, since the innovative or "controversial" art
: which you so desire is, by definition, entirely inestimable.
: Enough of this desperate philosophy of dice-rolling.
First of all, the NEA hardly has any money now for individual artists.
(I would be willing to toss this out if it was necessary, because I see
99% of the individual grants going out through a PC patronage system).
The vast majority of the NEA spending goes to little arts organizations.
The ones who just might have enough money to rent out a church and
premiere a chamber orchestra piece which will not get performed until
then. The ones that enhance minority self-image and provide a little
hope in our urban hells.
Are you this much of a scrooge to say NO to a bit of *SEED_MONEY* for
these projects? NEA granting organizations are kinds of libraries of the
soul for performances (in contrast to books).
The next Beethoven is not going to live or die on the NEA. So what....
Our society is in a real crisis now - psychically/spiritually. We need
the arts more than ever to provide us with context. Maybe in an America
where everybody lived the suburban fantasy lifestyle and had access via the
InterNet to every possible recording of art/music/etc. we wouldn't need
it.
But that's a fantasy.
In the real world, we need much more art everywhere. I don't care if it's
good or bad or sucks to high heaven. I want art. I don't want B2's. I
don't want military bands. I don't want half of the things the
government wastes money on. I really don't even want the NEA that much.
I just want there to be a place in this world for great art. I want it
to be accessible to everyone in the world. If we have to use a few $ to
achieve that little goal here in the states... too bad.
Let's cut the pork - including the military pork. And triple the NEA budget!
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
PostScript Scores at ftp.gmd.de in music/scores/harrington
Check out BlueStrider for Piano ftp.cs.ruu.nl pub/MIDI/SONGS/MISC/BlueStri.mid
--
MTSA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
I would like to second and amplify Jeff Harrington's earlier post.
Does Milo (or whoever) think that everybody that wants NEA support
gets it? Or that a grant, if we get one, enables us to sit around
on our duffs for two or three years while turning out a 5-minute
piano piece?
Get real. The NEA funds approximately 5% of the requests it gets
from composers (NEA statistic). I imagine that the percentages
are roughly similar in the other art fields. Further, the average
grant is a few thousand dollars--enough, perhaps, to take the
summer off from teaching summer school, or work part-time instead of
full-time for a few months at whatever grinding, inspiration-killing
job you do to support yourself.
And, I guarantee you, since the Karen Finley/Robert Maplethorpe et al
flap, very little truly experimental or avant-garde work gets
funded.
They also demand a final report; if you don't do the work you proposed,
you are not considered for any further grants.
Although I would hate to see the individual grants phased out
completely--at least before I get one:)--I, like Jeff, would be
willing to see those go if the grants to arts organizations
would continue. They are the bulk of the spending, anyway.
I think the NEA probably gets more for its money than almost any
other federal program. Let's cut out the __real__ waste--
welfare for big corporations, selling off federal land at a
fraction of its value to mining companies, weapons systems that
don't work, cannot be made to work, probably were never intended
to work, and weren't needed even if they did work, etc. before cutting
off the already miniscule funding to one of the few federal
agencies that actually achieves something positive in our lives.
--MTS
Jason Greshes and her
1) What percentage of NEA funds, or what dollar amount, is given to
unmatched grants directly to artists? These are the only grants that
exist out side the market. Otherwise, the artist still has to recieve
other private sources of funds, so the government is only helping.
Even the Serrano and Maplethorpe displays that so enraged conservatives
didn't involve creation of the works. Did the government pay the entire
costs for displaying these works? Or did museums have to pick up a share
of the costs? If so, then again the government funding just helped,
allowing the works to be displayed in smaller cities.
From articles I've read (newspaper, etc. so not the most detailed
information), grants from the NEA are often used with other private
grants, museum funds, etc. rather than as a replacement for them.
Elmination of NEA funding won't cripple the NY Philharmonic, Philadelphia
Orchestra, Boston Symphony, etc., but what will it do the Jacksonville
Symphony, Florida Philharmonic, etc.? Those are the people that are
going to get nuked--groups that already scrape by providing live music in
smaller cities.
I guess that's the main fear I have about elmination of the NEA, PBS, and
federal funds for museums. I live in Philadelphia now, where there are
well-endowed cultural organizations, and federal funding provides extra
spice. However, I've also lived in small towns in Florida, where arts
organizations need assistance just to keep presenting standard-issue
works. Same with PBS.
Big city stations won't have as much of a problem making up the loss of
federal funds, but I don't have any trouble imagining smaller market PBS
stations having to close shop, or having to fill air time with important
cultural programming like the Rockford Files.
The thing I really don't understand is the Republican enthusiasm for
cutting off funds to museums. And were not talking about just the
Whitney here, they have sights set on the Smithsonian. And local
historical establishments.
John Szostak
we need to eat, clothe ourselves, pay the rent, etc., all of which takes
money. Where does a practicing artist get this money? Where have
practicing SUCCESSFUL artists gotten their money in the past? Once
artists were considered craftsmen, belonged to guilds, and were more or
less taken care of. Did this reduce the value/beauty/"success" of their
labors? Anyone who has visited Chartes, for example, would not argue
this.
But times change. "Artists" then were supported in apprenticeships, and
thus were taken care of, so to speak, from their training period up.
That stopped happening. Artists then relied solely on patrons of one
sort or another, unless they got so rich (Michelangelo, Titian, etc.)
that they could start doing what they pleased. This is the clincher -
THEY COULD NOT DO WHAT THEY PLEASED. Neither could their Medieval (and
earlier) counterparts.
We jump to the 19th century, mostly because of the example of Van Gogh
mentioned a number of times in this string. Van Gogh did what he
pleased. He sold one painting. Where'd he get his money? His brother.
He was NOT working in a La-la Land of Abundance and Creativity. He was
dirt poor, and needed to rely on his brother for support. Without this
outside money, guess what? You know what. But his case was special, as
his brother believed in him heart and soul, and even jeopardized his own
career as a dealer by insisting on trying to hawk Vincent's lousy
paintings.
What's my point here? Artists need money. ALWAYS have, ALWAYS
will. Where do they get it? We're in a gray area, here, folks, there is
no right or wrong. It's a personal choice. If you go with
the opinions of a gallery owner or agent who helps you direct your
work so that it is more
"sellable," that's a choice. If you decide to drive a cab all day and
work on your art at night, that's a choice.
If you decide to
ask the government for money, and you're willing to undergo the evaluation
process (no, it's NOT simply "luck" - there IS an evaluation process,
we're not talking a giant Art Lotto here), it's a choice. But you are
always held accountable. The gallery owner's advice might be good in
terms of getting paid for your work, but it might severely effect your
ability to work on your own terms. Driving a cab (or any other day job)
frees up your nights for work, but when do you sleep? When do you have a
life? Big trade off. Going to the NEA and getting cash - immediate
freedom! Immediate exposure! What could possibly be wrong?
Well, the money is not from a whimsical patron or a thoughtful clientele,
it's our tax money. Big difference. The govt. (through the voices of its
constituents) has decided art is worth supporting - in the same way that its
decided that agriculture, banking, small business, academia, medical
research, developing countries, the unemployed, the elderly, etc., are worth
supporting. I say it's a rare and wonderful thing, it's always been a part
of the art-making process, and I feel the MAJORITY of the NEA choices are
excellent; we only tend to read about the controversial on the editorial
pages... do those against the NEA even have an idea of the tremendous
accomplishments of the large majority of the NEA winners? If you don't need
the money 'cause you're onto a fantastic thing, great. If you don't want the
money due to questions of conscience, fine. Don't ask for it then. But also
don't begrudge others who decide to ask - and who must take the consequences
for asking.
John Szostak
Univ. of WA
Seattle
Roger Lustig
>In article <29807.6...@bcsbbs.com>, Pambooger <96...@williams.edu> wrote:
>>In article <D03Iu...@crash.cts.com>,
>>Milo Cooper <mdco...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>>>>>Absolutely, thank you. I would be more than pleased to see the NEA shot
>>>>>down in flames. Some of the most screw-loose concepts, labelled as "art",
>>>>>have received NEA funding
>>>>Like classical music.
>>> No, like a garish sculpture made of tin foil and crushed
>>>cans, which a chimpanzee might haphazardly construct during a
>>>temper tantrum in your local sanitation yard. Okay, maybe not.
>> This is the attitude which discourages experimentation and the
>>introduction of new ideas. A sculpture like that may be considered by
>>some as art.
> Let the artist take the chance, not the public. Better
>yet, let's just have the monkey throw it together, it'd be much
>cheaper. All we'd have to buy then are a bunch of Chiquitas.
Philistine insults aside, perhaps you could enlighten us with a few
statistics: what percentage of avant-garde, minimalist, conceptual,
what-have-you art receives *any* funding? What makes you associate
such art with government support in the first place? Do such projects
regularly get funded? Can you name *any* that correspond even vaguely
to your description?
> Experimentation is not only fine, but essential to the
>arts. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC.
Why not? Aren't the results potentially worthwhile?
>Mozart, Beetho-
>ven, and Haydn (to name a few) all had to produce "commercial" art
>to sustain themselves, yet they still managed to write masterpieces
>for which the government would not have paid.
Which ones? Haydn was an employee of a feudal lord for most of his
life. Mozart was employed by the Catholic Church, which had plenty
of taxation powers and monopolies, and by the court of the Holy Roman
Empire.
Beethoven received numerous commissions from nobles, and quite a few
pensions established by the Viennese aristocracy precisely so that he
wouldn't have to compete in the market.
Without a base of employment and commissions from the court, the
church, and the aristocracy, said composers wouldn't have had the
freedom to compose those other masterpieces.
>Given this, I have
>to believe that the ingredients for the production of a masterwork
>do not include government financing.
But vast numbers of masterworks have indeed been financed that way,
and many (from the Sistine ceiling on down) would not have come into
being any other way.
Since antiquity, government *has* funded art. That's why we have the
arts we do: painting, sculpture, orchestral composition, etc.--all these
would exist in entirely different forms, or perhaps not at all, were it
not for government sponsorship over the centuries.
>Meanwhile, such financing assures more crap than beauty,
As opposed to what, I wonder? What non-governmental art has produced
more beauty than crap? I suggest that you refamiliarize yourself with
Sturgeon's Law.
>and fosters a lazy dependency on
>money forcibly drawn from the purse of one's neighbor.
Right. Bach was soooo lazy.
Now, once again: can you come up with some examples? Name some artists
whom government sponsorship made lazy. Name the "trash" art that gets
funded. Explain why the vast majority of the stuff you call "crap" is
*not* government-funded.
>>>>>So, what is art anyhow -- and why should the government fund it
>>anyhow?
>>>>Because in a capitalist society experimentation and the introduction of new
>>>>ideas is discouraged in favor of giving the customer what he wants.
>>> You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>>>encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>>>them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
>> Mr. Cooper refutes his own statement. See comment on garish
>>sculpture above. That sculpture is innovative and quite possibly
>>insightful. That is art!
> Rubbish. Just because something is new or avant garde,
>that does not make it any more "quite possibly insightful" than
>anything randomly produced.
Excuse me, but the very fact that it was produced (as opposed to,
say, found at random) implies that there was some intention, and
therefore quite possibly some insight, involved in its creation.
>I can write a computer program that
>churns out billions of pictures with pixels of random color val-
>ue; whither the insight in those?
You probably mean "where" or "whence". But no matter--it depends
on the program, what use you put it to, etc. Keep in mind that
fractals, say, have indeed produced a fair amount of stuff that
more than a few people call "beautiful."
>People, especially males, can
>unearth what they call innovation and insight from an incoherent
>mess when there is, in fact, none to be had,
People, especially you, it would seem, can also criticize non-
existent art-works as though they actually existed. How about
getting down to some cases?
>especially if they've
>been forced to pay for it. If the government assures an artist
>that s/he will receive cash for a work, can you say with surety
>that the promise of funds will not affect the actual production
>of the artwork, that it will never be hastily conceived or real-
>ized, that the money in itself, in its certainty of receipt, will
>not take on an attractiveness of its own?
Can you say that of *any* commissioned artwork? Don't change
the subject. Even without reading John Berger, you can probably
figure out that a good deal of the point of Renaissance oil painting
was for the patron to show off his fat wallet and (therefore) good
taste.
Moreover, what "cash-for-work" transactions are you referring to?
The NEA does very little in the way of commissions; those generally
come from private philanthropy, performers, foundations, etc. (As I
pointed out a few days ago, the most famous American ballet of all,
_Appalachian Spring_, was partly the result of a commisssion from
the Library of Congress, so the batting average can't be all *that*
low.)
At any rate, don't change the subject. The issues you describe are
endemic to all sorts of transactions; the source of the money is
pretty irrelevant. (Actually, the scrutiny that the NEA provides
beforehand is generally a good deal more stringent than what many
other commissioning people or groups do.)
And how do you even *measure* the value of the completed work in
exact terms? Tastes change; what's considered good and valuable
this year may be banal and pointless in five years. Other things
are ahead of their time.
>Dangle a carrot before
>a camel, and its objective is the obtainment of the carrot,
>not reaching a destination which you have in mind. On the other
>hand, if a camel wants to be someplace, then the absence of a
>carrot in front of it will not suppress its efforts to get there
>-- unless it has come to rely on carrots to ignite its motivations.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
--Samuel Johnson
Now, perhaps you could name the artists who slaved away at their
work *without* hope of financial success. You seem to have a
tremendously romanticized view of art-as-it-should-be, one in which
the "destination" is purely artistic in a sense unrelated to commerce.
And *that* is a mighty odd attitude to hold if you consider market
forces to be at the center of human motivation.
It's also clearly at variance with fact. When Mozart *did* compose
outside of governmentally- or aristocratically-funded situations,
he did so for money. He sought commissions, publications, performance
oppportunities, etc., and composed for those. And he moved to the
city that had the most music consumers in order to make his fortune.
>You people have swallowed hook, line and sinker yet another super-
>fluous dependency that the government has managed to fabricate.
Who's "you people"? And which government are you talking about?
Athens? Now go back through history and find me those artists who
were a) independent of funding; b) never dealt with government
funding; c) didn't write for carrots.
Then, when you're done with that one, tell me how dependent our
artists really are on government funding. What percentage of
total arts expenditure is governmental? Where does the money
go?
> This newsgroup is soaked with the liberal, "intellectual,"
>pro-avant garde mentality which assigns plaudits to innovation
>in concurrent disregard for art's truest function: the edifica-
>tion of humanity.
Is *that* the Truth? Where did you pick that one up?
Certainly not from Horace, who thought that poetry should delight
as well as edify; nor from any esthetic since the Enlightenment.
By the time of the American Revolution, the Enlightenment view of
art in society was being rejected in most of Europe--except where
it had never taken hold.
Now, ignoring for a moment your insulting labels, perhaps you could
show even a single example of what you mean regarding the newsgroup.
How many people here have anything to say at all about the avant-garde?
How many like it? How many consider it something to be supported
blindly?
Now, perhaps you should tell us why you feel that government policy
should be made according to your (unsupported) views about Art's
Truest Function.
>To this end, the fundamental aspects of humankind must be observed.
Uh, right, boss. This sentence needs work before it's even a
platitude.
Just what *are* the "fundamental aspects of humankind"?
(When I hear that, I think along the lines of two-eyes-and-a-nose,
etc. Humankind is mighty varied, you know.)
>When an expression as effective as Beet-
>hoven's Ninth symphony or Gyorgy Ligeti's _Requiem_ or Arvo Part's
>_Miserere_ is unearthed, other artists must acknowledge it and
>incorporate such a finding in the historically evolutionary, NOT
>REVOLUTIONARY, process known as art.
Does that mean Ligeti should give back his commission? And what
should he say to all the people who smeared him as an avant-gardist
for so long, both the commissars in Budapest and the rightists in
Hamburg?
Also, what do these pieces have to do with "fundamental aspects of
humankind"? What percentage of humankind can make heads or tails
of the Ligeti or Part? Most people on this planet don't much like
the Beethoven--and most of thre rest don't like the long part
before the singing starts.
Now, what's this "not revolutionary" stuff? I know you like to
lay down the law, but don't you think Beethoven and Ligeti and
Part all benefited from *several* musical revolutions, from
the Florentine Camerata and Monteverdi on one end, to Beethoven's
own revolutionary approach to music, to Schoenberg, Debussy, and
Stravinsky?
I've heard Ligeti himself speak of revolutionary developments in
music, and how he was influenced by them.
Seems to me that art has room for revolutions, just like science
and anything else. Or don't you consider Gutenberg,
Galileo, and Goedel to have had revolutionary effect?
>It is plain that government
>(i.e. PUBLIC) support of art is unnecessary, as many great works
>have been produced without such.
It is plain that entire *genres* of works wouldn't have existed
without government support. I suggest you read a little more
history.
>It is handy, but masterpieces
>produced under supporter grudge take longer to appreciate by
>these supporters (i.e. the PUBLIC) than art independently made,
Examples, please?
>especially if other publicly-funded artists are producing worth-
>less works at the same time.
We're still waiting for your first example. Note that Beethoven's
Ninth had only very rare performances for its first 15 years; lots
of lesser works, some of them commissioned, some even governmentally
funded, were quite popular.
And if we want to measure the value of art by public support, or
by the length of time it takes to recognize their greatness,
perhaps you could explain Bach, Van Gogh, Mahler, etc. Then look
at all the artists who were wildly popular in the 19thC, say, and
who were or weren't funded by whatever source--and explain whether
their works are masterpieces, since we don't care about them much
today.
I think you're taking a good many things for granted, e.g., the
meaning of "masterpiece," the value of art relative to instant
or later public approbation, the idea of "worthless works,"
and so on. How do you make all these judgments so surely?
Remember: the Eiffel Tower started out as an eyesore.
>> But art like that would not be produced if
>>its production depended solely on a public with attitudes like Mr.
>>Cooper's. This is the way things are now, to some extent. For
>>example, there are many excellent twentieth century operas, but how
>>often do we see them performed? Opera companies need to do the
>>popular ones much more because they rely in part on ticket sales. The
>>fact that Shostakovich's Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk is playing at the Met
>>is probably due in part to government funding. Ticket sales have not
>>been as good, if a big ad in the NY Times is a sign of that. What are
>>the chances that they are going to keep this opera for the next
>>season? I really wanted to go, but was unable to (partially because
>>tickets are so expensive!), and I may never get to see it, especially
>>if government funding is cut.
> You want to take the easy way out and demand that
>the public uphold art, instead of deriving other non-coercive
>and educational means for its subsistence.
To a very minor extent, yes. Far less so than, say, supporting
military bands--or military materiel, much of which is far more
worthless than the art you disdain without even knowing. The
NEA budget is smaller than the error in the calculations of the
waste in the Pentagon budget.
>>> The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>>>Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>>>general public. No one is going to like, or even appreciate, some-
>>>thing simply because s/he has been made to pay for it.
>>> Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>>>comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>>>been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>>>and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
>> If you leave it up to the public, you're really leaving it up
>>to the rich public. I don't have the means to go out and support art
>>in a great and influential way. Government funding helps remedy that
>>situation.
> If lots of people like to watch soap operas and they
>feel that that industry will suffer mightily without govern-
>ment funding, should the rest of us be made to pay for further
>episodes of _As the World Turns_?
You're not really interested in discussing this topic, are you?
That last bit shows that you haven't even been listening to your
own arguments.
(After all, the PUBLIC has determined that the show is worthwhile.
Is it a masterpiece? Does it relate to "fundamental aspects of
humankind"? Is it more valuable than the vast majority of art
produced with government funding?)
(For that matter, where did the actors learn to act? Who paid
for that? Did we get value for our money, funding academies
and public colleges like that?)
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <D074...@sun10.sep.bnl.gov>,
>Gary Schroeder <schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>In article <D03sp...@dorsai.org>, idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) says:
>>>Milo Cooper (mdco...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>>>: You couldn't be more wrong. Innovation and insight are
>>>: encouraged under capitalism, because successful products made under
>>>: them ultimately bring the greatest wealth.
>>...and since when has the value of art and music been predicated on its
>>monetary value? Are you saying that only art which $sells$ is worthwhile?
> No, I'm saying that great art dismissed by a general pop-
>ulace existed well before capitalism enjoyed government implemen-
>taion, and that it is therefore erroneous to cite capitalism as
>The Great Obstacle of the production of fine artwork.
Which nobody did. Market economies *can* provide obstacles. They don't
necessarily, nor are they alone in doing so.
>>I guess you must be saying that, since you believe that capitalism is what
>>causes great art to be generated. I think that's a pretty preposterous notion.
>>Using your values, no art that was ever controversial would ever have
>>been made...since it would fail to sell.
> What, controversial nature = laudability?
It's been a pretty fundamental esthetic category for some time now.
>Why should any-
>one seek controversy in art for his/her satisfaction?
Ask Beethoven. Berlioz. Monet. Degas. Schoenberg. Nijinsky.
>Good art can
>be either controversial or not controversial.
And yet we hear so little about the latter type.
>I must insist that
>there is a more fundamental quality of great artwork than its
>inflammatory capabilities.
I must insist that you continue to argue in some semblance of good
faith. Controversy and inflammation are not the same thing.
>Change is not exclusively unpleasant.
Nor is controversy. Your point?
>>Pick an example: how about VanGogh? Only sold one painting in his life
>>and did most of his work while destitute. His paintings are now recognized
>>as masterpieces, yet they weren't seen as having any monetary value while
>>he was alive.
> Right, it survived despite the artist's destitution and
>lack of finer public recognition, which wouldn't have been nur-
>tured one iota had the people been forced to pay for his works.
a) They came within an inch of being destroyed.
b) He might actually have gotten some exposure.
c) He might have stayed alive a little longer, too. Nurturing
depends on continued breathing.
>What kind of artist is anyone if s/he relies on the government to
>support his/her hobby?
Hobby? We're not talking about hobbyists here. Do you denigrate
all artists like that?
A moment ago you were arguing that artists worked for reasons other
than money, toward some "destination." Now they're just hobbyists.
Ever *met* an artist?
To answer your question, though: composer, painter, poet, sculptor.
Other kinds too. Lots of all of these have taken the state's
money, or even been state employees.
>I say that career artists of today (of
>which group I am one) should follow the examples of established
>masters like Van Gogh and stop crying for the general public
>to baby them.
I say that you should show us a single example of an artist who
does so. You're attacking a straw man; besides, what NEA
commission--what public commission at all in this country--
has ever been enough to live on?
Again, you seem to be arguing from ignorance of what the NEA
does.
>A real artist will not stop making art simply
>because Uncle Sam is not doling him/her the public's ducats.
What artist has done so, or threatened to do so? Who are
these "Real artists," and who are the fake ones? Name some names.
>>I object to your analogy of art as "product". Product which is useful or
>>desirable under capitalism is termed profitable...yet, art does not seem
>>to fit this notion. Many hold art as both useful and desirable although
>>great art is rarely profitable during an artist's life. How can you explain
>>this? Might art be an exception to the capitalist dogma that you espouse?
> If it is, then why would you request that the government
>of a capitalist nation pay for it? Don't ask me this nonsense.
Well, ever since you told us that Mozart didn't work for the government,
the definition of "nonsense" would seem to have changed.
>>>: The market will often jump on anything novel and worthwhile.
>>>: Government subsidy of art will not insure art's success among the
>>>: general public.
>>The success or failure of art can never be assured.
> ...therefore, the public should pay for its support??
Why ever not? Even wars don't have success assured. We pay for
those.
And the extinction of art forms *does* assure their failure.
>> As stated earlier, it is
>>not simply a "product" or a "device" that can be judged against technical
>>specifications. While govt funding will not ensure great work, it may give
>>an artist the opportunity to produce work that was financially beyond their
>>means. Proper funding may give an artist the backing they need to fully
>>realize an important dream. That's the kind of thing we can all benefit from.
> And as _I_ stated earlier, why should anyone depend
>on the government for this financial support?
Good question. Ask the artists of the last 3000 years why they did it.
>What evidence
>is there that only the almighty government is a panacea against
>a landscape of flavorless artistic creations? It is a plan
Well, there's the growth in regional and local artistic endeavor of
all kinds since the NEA and similar organizations at the state level
were founded. CHeck out the number of orchestras then and now. Check
out the total funding of those orchestras from *all* sources. The NEA
works out to be a fantastic investment on that ground alone--having
expanded the tax base by a good deal.
>of great folly to embark upon a career as an artist with an
>expectation of government sustenance.
Not as great a folly as your silly straw men. What artist has
done so? Again, naming names would be nice. No artist draws
a majority of sustenance from grants, etc.
Kindly stick to the facts.
>What is more, since you
>defy the ability of anyone to judge art objectively and fair-
>ly by technical means -- the only means proper in deciding
>who gets how much tax cash -- then you cannot expect any sane
>person, rich or poor, to throw his/her money at Washington
>D.C. Las Vegas-style, in the hope that the great roulette
>wheel called NEA-arbitrament will actually finance something
>worth financing.
I see. Considering the results of 30 years of efforts won't
do? I'd say the NEA has accomplished more than most mutual
funds, and we tend to judge *them* by past performance, too.
Once again, stick to facts. The NEA *has* funded a great
many projects that you would consider worthwhile, and has
done so for very little money, and has accomplished what
private enterprise did *not* do over decades--namely bringing
a wide variety of arts to regions of the country that had
very little of that sort of thing.
>Most sensible people, such as myself, do not care to gamble so.
More cheap argument: insist that your side is the sensible one.
>What we should do is let people like
>you go right ahead and give your cash to the politicians, while
>the rest of us support art as we, as individuals rather than
>media of monetary transaction, see fit.
Go right ahead! But don't expect us to respect your judgment,
when you've gotten most of the facts wrong so far, and generally
don't argue from facts at all.
>>Success may not be guaranteed, but I'm willing to take that chance. I'd rather
>>see a fraction of a penny from every tax dollar I send in go towards that
>>chance than on another military weapon. I'm prepared to get art that I don't
>>like in the knowlege that I'll get some that I love.
> You mean, the HOPE that you will get some that you love.
It's worked before. What makes tomorrow so different?
>This is a superb example of the old "let us throw money at the
>problem" mentality, and what makes it tick.
You're changing the subject again. The NEA doesn't throw money;
it's among the tightest government agencies in giving the stuff
out. And if it's throwing money, how come so much of what it's
done has worked?
>I say that's a bunk
>tenet, frankly, and even if I lived by it myself, I would NOT
>suggest that everyone else be made to live under such a random
>rule, especially where their money is concerned. Artistic success
No. Bunk is when you make up the facts to suit you, and then
insult everyone who actually knows a bit about the topic.
>is ultimately the responsibility of the artist, not the public at
>large.
And every artist of today, funded or not, works under those
conditions.
>I commend those artists, such as the great Ludwig Van
>Beethoven, who stuck with their trade without demanding a portion
>of everyone else's salary to sustain them in their feats, and who
He didn't have to. Aristocrats gave it to him. He lived on a
set of pensions. Where did the aristocrats get their money?
>realized that the magnificence of great art is of such character
>that it quite often takes time, even beyond the life of its creat-
>or, to attain its greatest effect upon the public.
Do tell! When did he realize that? Why was he so frustrated,
then, when he was considered passe', when Rossini, and not he,
was the toast of Vienna?
Perhaps you should take your head out of your myths long enough
to learn about what Beethoven actually did, and how he lived
and worked.
>>>: Here we have more of this nihilistic belief that America
>>>: comprises a preponderance of Neanderthals. Great art has never
>>>: been and shall never be dependent upon politics for inception
>>>: and survival. Try having some faith in man and his creations.
>>It may not be solely dependent on the govt, no. But, think about how
>>many works of art might be generated by gov't funding that might
>>otherwise never be done because of a lack of patronage.
> Well now, that says it all, does it not? Yeah, let's
>try something based on a theory of luck, with everyone else's
>money, and let's just see what we get.
More distortion, more bullshit. The NEA specifically *doesn't*
give grants that way. Grants tend to go to proven, established
artists and organizations. Again, you might get a bit of
information before spouting like that.
> How impractical and lazy. All we need is a country
>full of government-dependent artists with no fear of loss of
>funds.
More and more of the same. We have *no* artists who live on
grants. Get a clue.
>I can just smell those masterpieces now. Someone
>call Mozart and tell him that he's about to meet his match.
Hey, he did his best work when he got funding, and his health
certainly suffered when the commissions dried up. Perhaps he
could have afforded a better doctor, or seen one earlier in
1791.
Why don't *you* call up the public library? Get a clue.
>>>Without NEA support - we'll lose practically all of the
>>>innovative little arts organizations that promote man's creations.
>>>We don't depend on politics. We depend on the public's love of the new.
>>>That new classical music CD which you're going to go wild over in 10
>>>years just ain't going to happen unless I get a performance from some
>>>little chamber orchestra that gets $3,000.00 a year from the federal
>>>government. Are you that much of a scrooge?
>>I agree completely, Jeff. We have some mighty strange priorities in this
>>country. While kids in New York city schools are using textbooks that are
>>30 years old with 50% of the pages missing, we're talking about spending
>>more money on the military budget. No, thank you. I don't mind at all
>>that a little of my tax dollar goes towards something as worth while as
>>NEA funding for the arts. Hey, I thought "piss christ" was ridiculous too,
>>but that sort of thing is going to happen. Just because you get some art you
>>don't like dosen't mean that the whole idea of patronage is wrong or
>>unjustified.
> But since we may get a little art that we like, then
>it IS justified, is that where you logic has taken you?
Um, that's the way it's always worked. 90% of the Greek tragedies
were probably trash, too; they didn't even survive. The ones we
have are pretty good.
They were funded. Aren't you glad?
> My logic tells me that great art is the product of
>an independent artist.
Logic only goes so far. Then it runs into facts. The history
of art is *not* the history of "independent artists." Most depended
on patronage, commissions, court jobs, church jobs, and other
publicly funded means, not to mention other forms of dependency on
others.
Your logic is ruled by 19th-century myths about art. Its premises
are contradictory in themselves, and contradicted by history.
>Motivation is suppressed by unconditional support.
Then why are you so upset at the NEA? They don't offer unconditional
support. Who ever gets a second grant?
Also, note that "unconditional support" means artistic independence.
What ever happened to the thing that produces great art? (See under
Josquin, Sibelius, etc.)
>As you yourself have written, artwork defies the
>capitalistic definition of "product," so it defies technical
>evaluation in the determination of its monetary value. Be-
>sides, the NEA money would be supplied before the completion
>of the work, so any sort of appraisal at all could be based
>only on an artist's prior works, and that, too, is a weak
>method of judgment, since the innovative or "controversial" art
>which you so desire is, by definition, entirely inestimable.
Of course, this would be far more interesting an argument if the
NEA primarily commissioned works.
It doesn't. Most of its money goes to support arts organizations,
museums, performing groups, teaching, etc.
>Enough of this desperate philosophy of dice-rolling.
Enough of your fact-free argument, how about?
Roger
David M. Cook
Milo Cooper <mdco...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
> Mozart, Beetho-
>ven, and Haydn (to name a few) all had to produce "commercial" art
>to sustain themselves, yet they still managed to write masterpieces
>for which the government would not have paid.
Haydn was funded by the government, in the form of Prince Esterhazy, for
most of his career.
Dave Cook
David M. Cook
> YOU REALLY NEED TO GET A LIFE ROGER.
This is really lame. Roger has done an excellent job keeping the debate
in this thread at a fairly high intellectual level. I don't think he
deserves this kind of backhanded dismissal.
Dave Cook
Milo Cooper
like you, Jeff Harrington. I think you're wrong, but I like you,
unlike the anti-progressive time-waster Roger Lustig, who does vir-
tually nothing but ask obvious questions.
In article <D0CF1...@dorsai.org>,
You're talking *the public's* money, is what you're
talking, regardless of whatever euphemism or other sort of
appellation you apply to it. If it nurtures poor art, it's
a waste of taxpayer cash.
>And just for the record, do you feel that the fact that the military arts
>organization - the BAND - gets 5 times (if I remember correctly) the NEA
>budget is fair? How does having a bunch of half-assed brass players
>marching around enhance our capitalist efficiency? :)
No, that is not fair. Given this, why do you stead-
fastly support the prolonged existence of the NEA?
>: My logic tells me that great art is the product of
>: an independent artist.
>
>That's not logic, that's common sense.
Call it what you like. At least we agree.
>: Motivation is suppressed by uncondition-
>: al support.
>
>You're exaggerating, Milos - rhetorically correct, I suppose - but still
>these are not trivial matters for us artists.
As an artist, I can say that I and other artists that
I have known experience much greater satisfaction when we garner
rewards AFTER our art is made, not before.
>Nobody gets unconditional full funding of every stupid art project they
>want.
As I'm sure you will agree, that's a good thing.
>: As you yourself have written, artwork defies the
>: capitalistic definition of "product," so it defies technical
>: evaluation in the determination of its monetary value. Be-
>: sides, the NEA money would be supplied before the completion
>: of the work, so any sort of appraisal at all could be based
>: only on an artist's prior works, and that, too, is a weak
>: method of judgment, since the innovative or "controversial" art
>: which you so desire is, by definition, entirely inestimable.
>: Enough of this desperate philosophy of dice-rolling.
>
>First of all, the NEA hardly has any money now for individual artists.
>(I would be willing to toss this out if it was necessary, because I see
>99% of the individual grants going out through a PC patronage system).
>
>The vast majority of the NEA spending goes to little arts organizations.
>The ones who just might have enough money to rent out a church and
>premiere a chamber orchestra piece which will not get performed until
>then. The ones that enhance minority self-image and provide a little
>hope in our urban hells.
>
>Are you this much of a scrooge to say NO to a bit of *SEED_MONEY* for
>these projects? NEA granting organizations are kinds of libraries of the
>soul for performances (in contrast to books).
Ask the public that and see what they say. Their
answer may well be "no."
>The next Beethoven is not going to live or die on the NEA. So what....
>
>Our society is in a real crisis now - psychically/spiritually.
Agreed.
> We need
>the arts more than ever to provide us with context. Maybe in an America
>where everybody lived the suburban fantasy lifestyle and had access via the
>InterNet to every possible recording of art/music/etc. we wouldn't need
>it.
There's an idea. Educate people via this "Information
Superhighway" that they've heard about instead of snatching coinage
from their pockets.
>But that's a fantasy.
You mean, it's hard work as opposed to merely taxing
everyone and his dog.
>In the real world, we need much more art everywhere. I don't care if it's
>good or bad or sucks to high heaven. I want art. I don't want B2's. I
>don't want military bands.
Umm, the influential puissance of art fundamentally
dictates the mentality of those to whom it is exposed, Jeff.
I think you need to care a great deal whether bad art is
unleashed upon the public. It is in great measure responsi-
ble for the current dire state of American society which you
indicate above. Come on, sir.
> I don't want half of the things the
>government wastes money on. I really don't even want the NEA that much.
>I just want there to be a place in this world for great art. I want it
>to be accessible to everyone in the world. If we have to use a few $ to
>achieve that little goal here in the states... too bad.
That is an irresponsible attitude, don't you think?
It is not enough to desire any art at all. Quality of art
is subordinate to ethics.
>Let's cut the pork - including the military pork. And triple the NEA budget!
>
>Jeff Harrington
Let's not.