Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Accomplishments of the NEA in Classical Music

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

Now that the house has voted to eliminate the NEA I am planning to write my
elected representatives.

What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music? What could
someone look back on in fifty years and say could not have happened without
the NEA? By this I do not mean funding supplements. Sure, without the NEA,
arts organizations are going to have to scury to find other sources of
operating revenue but what will the historical impact be?

If the NEA were, say, Diaghilev it would be able to say if it were not for me
there would have been no "Daphis and Chloe", "Firebird", etc. What are the
major pieces of music that would not have been created without the NEA?

John

------------------------------------------------
Big Brother is watching and keeping track of what
you post. I have removed my personal information
from the header and moved it here.

EMail Address:
|m.i.a.n.o @ |
|w.o.r.l.d.n.e.t . |
|a.t.t .|
|n.e.t |

Full Name:
-------------------
-J.o.h.n?M.i.a.n.o-
-------------------


Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

unread,
Jul 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/3/97
to

In article <5p139r$2...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:
>Now that the house has voted to eliminate the NEA I am planning to write my
>elected representatives.
>
>What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music? What could
>someone look back on in fifty years and say could not have happened without
>the NEA? By this I do not mean funding supplements. Sure, without the NEA,
>arts organizations are going to have to scury to find other sources of
>operating revenue but what will the historical impact be?
>
>If the NEA were, say, Diaghilev it would be able to say if it were not for me
>there would have been no "Daphis and Chloe", "Firebird", etc. What are the
>major pieces of music that would not have been created without the NEA?

No replies....Jesse Helms couldn't have come up with a more damning indictment
of the NEA.

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/3/97
to Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:
>
> In article <5p139r$2...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:
> >Now that the house has voted to eliminate the NEA I am planning to
> write my
> >elected representatives.

> >What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music?

The enormous growth in the audience for classical music, and the
enormous growth in orchestras and other performing groups.

> What could
> >someone look back on in fifty years and say could not have happened
> without
> >the NEA? By this I do not mean funding supplements.

Well, that's what the NEA *does*. It offers matching grants.

You might as well ask: what has the Civil Aeronautics Board
done for space exploration?

> Sure, without the NEA,
> >arts organizations are going to have to scury to find other sources
> > of operating revenue but what will the historical impact be?

Historical? Who cares about historical? Government is by, for,
and of the people; its mandate is not the creation of cultural
history.

> >If the NEA were, say, Diaghilev it would be able to say if it were
> not for me
> >there would have been no "Daphis and Chloe", "Firebird", etc. What
> are the
> >major pieces of music that would not have been created without the
> NEA?
>
> No replies....Jesse Helms couldn't have come up with a more damning
> indictment
> of the NEA.

Well, he certainly couldn't have come up with a *stupider* one.

a) The NEA hasn't been around for 50 years.

b) Creating great works of music is not its mandate, as far as I know.

c) So, what great pieces of music were created in that time, but
*without* the NEA, in your opinion?

Now, if you wish to listen to a work whose composition was funded
by a government grant, try _Appalachian Spring_. Slightly over
50 years ago, but...

Roger Lustig

HenryFogel

unread,
Jul 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/4/97
to

The accomplishment of the NEA cannot, and should not, be measured by what
pieces of music it helped to create that might not have been created
without it. But even if you wish to examine it by that narrow and, I
think, incorrect standard, I can certainly name you one piece that would
not have been created without its help, and which has entered the
repertory of new music that is frequently performed. The Chicago Symphony
Orchestra would have had to eliminate its composer-in-residence program if
it were not for the funding received from the NEA, and the result is that
John Corigliano's Symphony No. 1 "Of Rage and Remembrance", the most
performed symphony of recent decades, would not have been commissioned.
The NEA also directly provided funding for recording that work.

But direct funding of programs such as the Meet the Composer
composer-in-residence effort, and being responsible for creating pieces of
music, cannot be used as the standard with which to test the NEA. That is
a remarkably literalist and narrow approach. The fact is that in the area
of music, the NEA provides music to performing and presenting ensembles
which helps to keep them, and therefore the art, alive. In the case of
many orchestras, what would happen if the NEA money were to disappear,
would NOT be that the orchestras would "scramble to find replacement
monies" as many have suggested. Most orchestra administrations are
scrambling to find enough money to survive as it is. Instead, what most
orchestras would do is to find expenditures to cut -- and those
expenditures would come from the programs that the government ought most
strongly to be supporting -- the educational and community engagement
programs that are not cost effective, that don't bring in the revenue that
a subscription concert does, but that make the art available to young or
disenfranchised people. Or, adventurous programs that commission new works
which might not be directly funded by NEA money, but which are undertaken
because the orchestra has the ability to do it, an ability that loss of
NEA money would diminish.

That is the stupidest part about this NEA debate -- most people have a
misguided idea of what the impact of cuts would be. The fact is that all
orchestras (and this is true of other organizations; I use orchestras
because I know them best) have things they do that bring in less money
than other programs. If NEA funds are gone, it is those less
cost-effective programs that will be reduced.

Henry Fogel

Daniel F. Tritter

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:
>
> In article <5p139r$2...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:
> >Now that the house has voted to eliminate the NEA I am planning to write my> >elected representatives.> >What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music? What could> >someone look back on in fifty years and say could not have happened without
> >the NEA? By this I do not mean funding supplements. Sure, without the NEA,> >arts organizations are going to have to scury to find other sources of> >operating revenue but what will the historical impact be?
> >>If the NEA were, say, Diaghilev it would be able to say if it were not for me> >there would have been no "Daphis and Chloe", "Firebird", etc. What are the> >major pieces of music that would not have been created without the NEA?>

> No replies....Jesse Helms couldn't have come up with a more damning indictment> of the NEA.
>

> ------------------------------------------------
> Big Brother is watching and keeping track of what
> you post. I have removed my personal information
> from the header and moved it here.
>
> EMail Address:
> |m.i.a.n.o @ |
> |w.o.r.l.d.n.e.t . |
> |a.t.t .|
> |n.e.t |
>
> Full Name:
> -------------------
> -J.o.h.n?M.i.a.n.o-
> -------------------


The original here, or perhaps the disciple of the giant intellect of the
Senate, Jesse Helms, has asked about the accomplishments of the NEA.
Apart from the rhetorical flourish disguising the enormous void in the
poster's reading habits, one ought place the debate in a larger context:

The NEA budget has been slashed from $170 Million to $110 million over a
couple of fiscal years, and now it threatens to be eliminated
altogether, a bountiful example of knownothingism invading the public
debate.

It costs about $2 billion to produce a single B-2 bomber, a figure
avidly approved by our legislators. In its lifetime, from R&D to drawing
board to test to manufacture to the air...what, my budget-happy
correspondent, has the B-2 done to protect us from an as yet to be
discovered enemy, in that lifetime of about a dozen years, other than to
fail every test designed to prove the efficacy and desirability of this
piece of money-wasting defense trash a sham and hoax on the American
people...?

Or should we pass on to the ongoing budgetary profligacy that animates a
thing called Star Wars, which was a better movie than artifact relating
to protection of our nation?

I note that the poster invokes a batch of political figures from the
Roman Empire. At least they left us a few statues and buildings and a
great linguistic heritage ... and were not stupid enough to denigrate
the idea that a nation can contribute a few drachmae to its artistic
soul without dragging its most publicly moronic orators from their
intellectual slumbers.

Ever hear of one Count Lichnowsky? Beethoven did. Called him a horse's
ass, but accepted his subsidy. The Count's purse, mercifully, did not
have to pass through Jesse Helms Country. The woods are full of
subsidized composers whose works you celebrate without pausing to note
how their creators fed themselves. Even W.A. Mozart took an occasional
draft from a government official, though we hear he didn't spend it
wisely. I hear some of his tunes are still floating around. Public
funding in the ephemera we call the arts is not meant to produce instant
genius, not even to satisfy bean counting bottom-lineists.

But you knew that ... DIDN'T YOU? [I thought not].


dft

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

In article <19970704125...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, henry...@aol.com (HenryFogel) wrote:
>The accomplishment of the NEA cannot, and should not, be measured by what
>pieces of music it helped to create that might not have been created
>without it. But even if you wish to examine it by that narrow and, I
>think, incorrect standard, I can certainly name you one piece that would
>not have been created without its help, and which has entered the
>repertory of new music that is frequently performed. The Chicago Symphony
>Orchestra would have had to eliminate its composer-in-residence program if
>it were not for the funding received from the NEA, and the result is that
>John Corigliano's Symphony No. 1 "Of Rage and Remembrance", the most
>performed symphony of recent decades, would not have been commissioned.
>The NEA also directly provided funding for recording that work.

While that standard may be narrow that is how the battle is going to be
decided. The reason the NEA is in imminent danger of being eliminated entirely
is because of certain acts of extremely poor judgement in funding

In theory the NEA is supposed to be the experts in promoting art. Instead of
having each congressman trying to slip in funding for his or her pet arts
projects congress established an organization of arts experts to select the
most worthwhile projects. While it can be argued that the cases of poor
judgement represent an extremely small amount of the total money that the NEA
spends, these lapses make an excelent "Elevator Pitch" case for dismantling
the NEA.

"Pro Case"

The NEA is an elitist, left-wing organization the specializes in promoting
works of art that are offensive and insulting to most Americans. The NEA has
taken tax money from hard working Americans and used it to support Andres
Serrano dunking a crucifix in urine and Robert Maplethorp to take pictures of
men engaged in homosexual acts.

"Con Case"

NEA funding for the Chicago Symphony's "Composer in Residence" program
was instrumental in the creation and recording of John Corigliano's Symphony
#1. This has become been the most widely performed orchestral work created in
the past 20 years and we have every reason to expect that this will be
remember as one of the most important piece of music created in the last
quarter of the 20th century.

This may be a narrow view but this is where the battle will be decided.

Mark Starr

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

When I encounter arguments against government subsidies for
the arts (particularly to creative artists,) I ask the arguer
"Do you favor Public Domain?"

If government contributes nothing to the creations of The Arts
while artists and performers are alive, then by what right
does government, in the name of The Public, confiscate all
intellectual property (as left to artists' heirs, foundations,
charitable institutions, etc.) years after they are dead?

Isn't an artistic creation exactly like an investment that,
theoretically, could continue to earn income indefinitely?
How can anyone justify this unilateral destruction of property
rights by government?

For example, government has decided that, under its copyright
laws, it is LEGAL in 1997 for anyone to perform in public and
profit from the music of Edward MacDowell--who died in 1908--
without obtaining permission from, or paying even a penny to,
MacDowell's LEGAL heirs.

I am virtually certain that Edward MacDowell would have greatly
preferred that his intellectual property rights continue forever.
He would have loved the idea that income earned by his intellectual
property be paid forever by consumers to his descendants and to his
foundation, The MacDowell Colony for Composers.

After all, MacDowell's music was MacDowell's personal
property--just as my great grandfather's gold pocket watch
was the property of my great grandfather. By coincidence,
my great grandfather also died in 1908. Does the government
now have the right to confiscate this pocketwatch from me,
since I inherited it? Has my right to own this pocketwatch
now expired? Can government destroy my property rights to
this watch, take it away and place it in the public treasury?

Can government destroy intellectual property rights after a
number of years without any compensation, without any societal
QUID PRO QUO? Are not government subsidies to The Arts one
of government's repayments to artists in exchange for society's
eventual use of governments right of Eminent Domain against all
intellectual property?

One more question. What would happen if indeed intellectual
property NEVER went into the public domain. Obviously, then
all consumers (including not only indiviuals in the public
but also the government itself if the form of public schools,
government publications, NPR, etc.) would have to pay FOREVER
to use any and all intellectual content. As New York attorney
Barry Scheck would probably say: "How about THAT!!!!, NOW, HOW
ABOUT THAT. Mr. John Q. Public!!!!!!!."

Regards,
Mark Starr

Bill Finn

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

"Daniel F. Tritter" <"dtri...@bway.net"@bway.net> wrote:

...snip (interesting discussion partly omitted)

>Ever hear of one Count Lichnowsky? Beethoven did. Called him a horse's
>ass, but accepted his subsidy. The Count's purse, mercifully, did not
>have to pass through Jesse Helms Country. The woods are full of
>subsidized composers whose works you celebrate without pausing to note
>how their creators fed themselves. Even W.A. Mozart took an occasional
>draft from a government official, though we hear he didn't spend it
>wisely. I hear some of his tunes are still floating around. Public
>funding in the ephemera we call the arts is not meant to produce instant
>genius, not even to satisfy bean counting bottom-lineists.

One might also add the example of Jean Sibelius, who received a
lifelong yearly stipend from the Finnish government in order to be
able to freely compose. Anything there of value?

_______

Bill Finn

Brian Newhouse

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In article <5pm0qt$j...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>,
Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:

[snip with apologies to save screen space]


>
> "Pro Case"
>
> The NEA is an elitist, left-wing organization the specializes in promoting
> works of art that are offensive and insulting to most Americans. The NEA has
> taken tax money from hard working Americans and used it to support Andres
> Serrano dunking a crucifix in urine and Robert Maplethorp to take pictures of
> men engaged in homosexual acts.
>
> "Con Case"
>
> NEA funding for the Chicago Symphony's "Composer in Residence" program
> was instrumental in the creation and recording of John Corigliano's Symphony
> #1. This has become been the most widely performed orchestral work created in
> the past 20 years and we have every reason to expect that this will be
> remember as one of the most important piece of music created in the last
> quarter of the 20th century.
>
> This may be a narrow view but this is where the battle will be decided.
>

Sounds about par for behind-the-Beltway politics and political opinion of
at least the past two decades...which is why I for one do not trust the
intelligence of politicians, still less that of political pundits and
philosophers, when it comes to the issues of the day that it's their
business to be addressing. To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., I would
rather be governed by a random hundred names from the Metropolitan Opera
roster than by the editorial board of the Nation or the National
Review--some days I'd say that about the U.S. Senate itself!

(Maybe with Joseph Volpe in the White House we might actually _get_ a
balanced budget! <grin>)

Speaking for myself, I have always taken Henry Fogel's view on the matter:
that government subsidy is less important for the masterworks it pays for
than for the institutional support and continuity that provides a context
out of which new masterworks and new audiences might grow. However,
observing the NEA debate, I am inclined to support its abolition, simply
because the people governing the debate are not the sorts who can be
trusted to subsidize anything with the proper dispassion.

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

1. The principle that creative works revert to the public domain after some
time period is one of praticality.Four genrations have passed since
MacDowell's death. After that time period an author could have several hundred
direct descendants and even more distant relations. Who would be the author's
legal heirs at that point?

2. The system of intelectual property protection is based upon the giving
exclusive rights for some period of time. In exchange the creator gives up
those rights in the name of advancement. Should Brahms have paid royalties to
to Hayden for writing his variations (or to whoever really wrote the tune)?

Should NBC pay Homer's heirs royalties on "The Odessey"?

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to mi...@worldnet.att.net

Why is it in no danger of having its budget doubled because of an
extremely good record of funding judgment?



> In theory the NEA is supposed to be the experts in promoting art.

Whose theory is that? You don't seem to know much about the NEA.

> Instead of
> having each congressman trying to slip in funding for his or her pet
> arts
> projects congress established an organization of arts experts to
> select the
> most worthwhile projects. While it can be argued that the cases of
> poor
> judgement represent an extremely small amount of the total money that
> the NEA
> spends, these lapses make an excelent "Elevator Pitch" case for
> dismantling
> the NEA.

Which, to coin a phrase, is the most damning argument against
that sort of cheap politics. Politicians who engage in that
sort of crap should be publicly humiliated and voted out of
office.



> "Pro Case"

> The NEA is an elitist, left-wing organization the specializes in
> promoting
> works of art that are offensive and insulting to most Americans. The
> NEA has
> taken tax money from hard working Americans and used it to support
> Andres
> Serrano dunking a crucifix in urine and Robert Maplethorp to take
> pictures of
> men engaged in homosexual acts.

Well, if we start with lies, we can go anywhere we want. The NEA
*never* funded any of Robert Mapplethorpe (sp!)'s work (they did
provide a matching grant for a large exhibit of his photos after
his death, only a few of which are as you describe); and if you
didn't know the title of Serrano's photo, you'd never know what
the crucifix was immersed in. (Would lemon Kool-Aid have been
more PC?)



> "Con Case"

> NEA funding for the Chicago Symphony's "Composer in Residence" program
> was instrumental in the creation and recording of John Corigliano's
> Symphony
> #1. This has become been the most widely performed orchestral work
> created in
> the past 20 years and we have every reason to expect that this will be
> remember as one of the most important piece of music created in the
> last
> quarter of the 20th century.

> This may be a narrow view but this is where the battle will be
> decided.

And, by your own examples, it's a colossally *stupid* view. Why
not fight *stupidity* in government, instead of participating it?

Neither of the 'cases' you present has anything to do with the
actual NEA. Why must we stoop to Jesse Helms' level?

Mark Starr

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

John Miano wrote:

> 1. The principle that creative works
> revert to the public domain after some
> time period is one of praticality.

What's your point? Whatever it is, it has nothing to
do with the core beliefs upon which American property
rights are based.

Besides, practicality is a phoney issue. Any issues
of practicality would eventually sort themselves out
if considerable sums of money were involved--just as
they do in cases of people with property who die
intestate; and just as they do in countless cases
of copyright infringement under the current law.

In the IP cases where no legal resolution is ever reached
regarding the question of who should receive what, then
neither society nor individuals suffer harm. One does
not suffer harm when one is not awarded future income
to which one never had legally valid claim.

BTW, who ever demonstrated conclusively that it is
practical to collect and distribute royalties and
performing rights for death-plus-50 years (or
death-plus-70 years, or copyright-date-plus-75 years,
etc.), but NOT for death plus 200 years, or even death
plus 500 years?

You are thinking retroactively, and I am not. With
such modern luxuries as computers, a goverment copyright
office, an army of copyright lawyers, public records,
etc., who would dare state in public that a copyright
term of death-plus-500 years will certainly turn out
to be impractical or unworkable. Yet society, in the
form of the U.S. government has sold out the rights of
all creative artists to pass on indefinitely the income
earned by their creations to whomever they wish (even to
an "immortal" foundation or trust.)

According to you, society has done just this, basing it
on a totally unproven claim that intellectual property rights
are impractical after a century or so. Moreover, when
terminating the intellectual property rights of all artists,
the goverment never adequately compensated creative artists
with a decent quid pro quo--such as government subsidy of
the arts.

> Four genrations have passed since
> MacDowell's death. After that time period an author could have several hundred
> direct descendants and even more distant relations. Who would be the author's
> legal heirs at that point?

An irrelevant point. If there is a lot of money at stake, then let
the legal system decide this question. It is this self-policing
principle
that is the fundamental principle underlying all intellectual property
laws. For example, when an infrigement of your copyright occurs, the
government will not give you any money as compensation. You have to
bring legal action against the infringer, and prove to a court that
your valid legal rights were in fact infringed. If you win the case,
then you have to use the court's enforcement powers to collect
the judgement from the infringer. It is the size of the sum of money
at stake that determines whether it is in your best interest to
initiate such a legal action, or drop it instead.

> 2. The system of intelectual property protection is based upon the
> giving exclusive rights for some period of time.

OK, why not 500 years?

> In exchange the creator gives up those rights in the name of > advancement.

What if creators think this deal in unfairly unbalanced against
them? Where and when did any creative artists ever agree that
the quid pro quo specified in the current copyright law indicates
the true value of US copyright protection. Is death-plus-50 years
of copyright protection (and no government subsidy of the arts)
worth future expropriation by the state of all intellectual
property rights? Is Congress' decision "fair"?

> Should Brahms have paid royalties to Hayden for writing his

> variations (or to whoever really wrote the tune)?

If Germany had enacted a copyright law that was in force in 1873
and had offered protection for death-plus-70 years, then undoubtedly
Brahms should have paid royalties to Haydn's heirs.

Again, my point was not about applying copyright laws retroactively--
but rather about changing current IP laws to make them fair to
creative artists in the present and future. OR about paying creative
artists NOW in the form of government subsidies to The Arts as a
fair quid pro quo for confiscating their IP rights at some mutually
agreed-upon time in the future. What may have been considered "fair"
by Congress back in 1909, or even in 1978, may no longer be deemed
"fair" by the poeple this law affects most directly: creative
artists.



> Should NBC pay Homer's heirs royalties on "The Odessey"?

If that was the law in Ancient Greece, and if it has not yet expired,
then why not?

Regards,
Mark Starr

Alan Swindells

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In article <33BE99...@inow.com>, Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:


>
> If government contributes nothing to the creations of The Arts
> while artists and performers are alive, then by what right
> does government, in the name of The Public, confiscate all
> intellectual property (as left to artists' heirs, foundations,
> charitable institutions, etc.) years after they are dead?
>

By my understanding of the laws of Intellectual Property in the US,
here in the UK and through most of the world, I think you may have
this the wrong way around. Govenments do not 'confiscate all
intellectual property' after x years as you put it. The legislation
has been put in place to provide protection against piracy. This is
a protection provided for a limited period, not a right removed
after that period.

For example, many of Haydn's works were published in Paris without
his knowlege, without his permission and without him being paid.
There was absolutely nothing he could do to prevent it, because it
was not against any law.

Without this legislation there would be nothing in law to stop me
from mounting a performance of (say) Corigliano's first Symphony
and refusing to pay him a penny. The time limit has been put on
for reasons of practicality. Without it, for example, what would
there be to prevent someone claiming to be the heir to J S Bach
and demanding payment of Roylties on the Brandenburgs? Such a
situation might keep Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne (solicitors
and atorneys at law) busy, but wouldn't do anyone else any good.

--
Regards: Alan * alan...@argonet.co.uk *

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...
Ralph Waldo Emerson


Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to Mark Starr

Mark Starr wrote:

> John Miano wrote:

> > 1. The principle that creative works
> > revert to the public domain after some
> > time period is one of praticality.

> What's your point? Whatever it is, it has nothing to
> do with the core beliefs upon which American property
> rights are based.

There is no such set of 'core beliefs'. American
property rights were created as a consensus among
people with varying notions of what might underlie
them; and they have evolved.

Besides, 'core beliefs' aren't law--mainly because
using them for legal argument involves mindreading
where the mind being read has been dead for centuries.



> Besides, practicality is a phoney issue. Any issues
> of practicality would eventually sort themselves out
> if considerable sums of money were involved--just as
> they do in cases of people with property who die
> intestate; and just as they do in countless cases
> of copyright infringement under the current law.

How does that make it a phony issue? "Things will
eventually sort themselves out" has nothing to do
with justice, which, when delayed, is denied.



> In the IP cases where no legal resolution is ever reached
> regarding the question of who should receive what, then
> neither society nor individuals suffer harm. One does
> not suffer harm when one is not awarded future income
> to which one never had legally valid claim.

Now you're defining 'harm' to suit your desired
outcome. That won't do--unless you'd like a
circular argument.

> BTW, who ever demonstrated conclusively that it is
> practical to collect and distribute royalties and
> performing rights for death-plus-50 years (or
> death-plus-70 years, or copyright-date-plus-75 years,
> etc.), but NOT for death plus 200 years, or even death
> plus 500 years?

The registrars of births and deaths will tell you
that, in a non-centralized country like ours, proving
that one is/isn't the nth-generation descendant of
someone is pretty hard as n becomes large.

> You are thinking retroactively, and I am not.

....except when you wish to argue from 'core beliefs'
that established 'American property rights.'

> With
> such modern luxuries as computers, a goverment copyright
> office, an army of copyright lawyers, public records,
> etc., who would dare state in public that a copyright
> term of death-plus-500 years will certainly turn out
> to be impractical or unworkable. Yet society, in the
> form of the U.S. government has sold out the rights of
> all creative artists to pass on indefinitely the income
> earned by their creations to whomever they wish (even to
> an "immortal" foundation or trust.)

Perhaps we should start with the artists offering to pay
the administrative costs of this eternal record-keeping.
Remember that copyright began as a *service* provided to
writers; and that a not inconsiderable sum has been
spent, and is being spent, in order to administer and
protect this system.

>
> According to you, society has done just this, basing it
> on a totally unproven claim that intellectual property rights
> are impractical after a century or so.

They are until we determine who pays for the ongoing genealogical
research, and how one determines that there are/aren't any
heirs left.

> Moreover, when
> terminating the intellectual property rights of all artists,

Odd language: by securing them, they 'terminated' them.

> the goverment never adequately compensated creative artists
> with a decent quid pro quo--such as government subsidy of
> the arts.

Nonsense. They compensated them by giving them the copyright
protection in the first place.


> > Four genrations have passed since
> > MacDowell's death. After that time period an author could have
> several hundred
> > direct descendants and even more distant relations. Who would be the
> author's
> > legal heirs at that point?

> An irrelevant point. If there is a lot of money at stake, then let
> the legal system decide this question.

At whose expense?

> It is this self-policing principle
> that is the fundamental principle underlying all intellectual property
> laws.

Um, where did you get that one from?

> For example, when an infrigement of your copyright occurs, the
> government will not give you any money as compensation.

It will, however, bring the copyright system to bear.

> You have to
> bring legal action against the infringer, and prove to a court that
> your valid legal rights were in fact infringed. If you win the case,
> then you have to use the court's enforcement powers to collect
> the judgement from the infringer. It is the size of the sum of money
> at stake that determines whether it is in your best interest to
> initiate such a legal action, or drop it instead.

Ah. So we aren't really talking about 'rights' in the first place.

> > 2. The system of intelectual property protection is based upon the
> > giving exclusive rights for some period of time.

> OK, why not 500 years?

Because nobody's interested in the potential cost of such a system.



> > In exchange the creator gives up those rights in the name of >
> advancement.

> What if creators think this deal in unfairly unbalanced against
> them? Where and when did any creative artists ever agree that
> the quid pro quo specified in the current copyright law indicates
> the true value of US copyright protection.

I believe the laws were not passed without a great deal of
public comment, notably from writers, etc.

> Is death-plus-50 years
> of copyright protection (and no government subsidy of the arts)
> worth future expropriation by the state of all intellectual
> property rights?

Who cares? That's not happening. The IP 'rights' are recently
discovered ones (that's a nice way of saying that they were
invented). The state has not expropriated anything. It has
chosen to recognize, in a limited way, the existence of these
'rights' in order to promote certain public interests, notably
the encouragement of creative work. No 'core values' are at
stake; no legal necessity demanded that our or any government
protect IP (however defined).

> Is Congress' decision "fair"?

More than fair, some would say. Why should the state meddle
in the definition of things like 'Intellectual Property'?

> > Should Brahms have paid royalties to Hayden for writing his
> > variations (or to whoever really wrote the tune)?

> If Germany had enacted a copyright law that was in force in 1873
> and had offered protection for death-plus-70 years, then undoubtedly
> Brahms should have paid royalties to Haydn's heirs.

a) What heirs?

b) Who wrote the tune? Demonstrating that it was/wasn't by
Haydn is something that we're still not up to. (Note that
in Brahms' day the attribution was considered secure, but
is no longer.)

c) Since when is parody not covered under 'fair use'?
Variations certainly count as parody. Shall we eliminate
'fair use' rules, and pay for every small quotation?

> Again, my point was not about applying copyright laws retroactively--
> but rather about changing current IP laws to make them fair to
> creative artists in the present and future.

How do you know what will be fair in the future? That's
*precisely* the reason for looking at the past: because
we know what *did* happen in the future relative to that
point.

> OR about paying creative
> artists NOW in the form of government subsidies to The Arts as a
> fair quid pro quo for confiscating their IP rights at some mutually
> agreed-upon time in the future.

How is that fair? What's the time-value of their rights 75
years down the road? What will fair-use rules be then? How
do you know?

> What may have been considered "fair"
> by Congress back in 1909, or even in 1978, may no longer be deemed
> "fair" by the poeple this law affects most directly: creative
> artists.

So? We don't rework all our laws every year, in case you hadn't
noticed. Lysander Spooner is *not* our leading legal authority.

Now, where's the outcry among artists? To use your own arguments,
how many of them wish to spend the time and effort to secure or
invent the 'rights' of descendants they will never know?

> > Should NBC pay Homer's heirs royalties on "The Odessey"?

> If that was the law in Ancient Greece, and if it has not yet expired,
> then why not?

Whose laws of descendance and inheritance should we use? Those
of ancient Greece? That would exclude women, slaves, their
descendants, etc. Ours? That would be contrary to any wishes
Homer could ever have had. Who *isn't* descended from Homer?
Show your work. For that matter, show that Homer wrote any
particular line of the work.

*That's* why not.

Roger Lustig

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to Mark Starr

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In article <33BF59...@inow.com>, Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
,,,,,
>You are thinking retroactively, and I am not. With
>such modern luxuries as computers, a goverment copyright
>office, an army of copyright lawyers, public records,
>etc., who would dare state in public that a copyright
>term of death-plus-500 years will certainly turn out
>to be impractical or unworkable. Yet society, in the
>form of the U.S. government has sold out the rights of
>all creative artists to pass on indefinitely the income
>earned by their creations to whomever they wish (even to
>an "immortal" foundation or trust.)
.......

>An irrelevant point. If there is a lot of money at stake, then let
>the legal system decide this question. It is this self-policing

>principle
>that is the fundamental principle underlying all intellectual property
>laws. For example, when an infrigement of your copyright occurs, the
>government will not give you any money as compensation. You have to
>bring legal action against the infringer, and prove to a court that
>your valid legal rights were in fact infringed. If you win the case,
>then you have to use the court's enforcement powers to collect
>the judgement from the infringer. It is the size of the sum of money
>at stake that determines whether it is in your best interest to
>initiate such a legal action, or drop it instead.
......

>What if creators think this deal in unfairly unbalanced against
>them? Where and when did any creative artists ever agree that
>the quid pro quo specified in the current copyright law indicates
>the true value of US copyright protection. Is death-plus-50 years

>of copyright protection (and no government subsidy of the arts)
>worth future expropriation by the state of all intellectual
>property rights? Is Congress' decision "fair"?

Let me guess...you're a lawyer. :-)

Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In article <33BF278B...@ix.netcom.com>, juli...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d wrote:
>Whose theory is that? You don't seem to know much about the NEA.
>
>> Instead of
>> having each congressman trying to slip in funding for his or her pet
>> arts
>> projects congress established an organization of arts experts to
>> select the
>> most worthwhile projects. While it can be argued that the cases of
>> poor
>> judgement represent an extremely small amount of the total money that
>> the NEA
>> spends, these lapses make an excelent "Elevator Pitch" case for
>> dismantling
>> the NEA.
>
>Which, to coin a phrase, is the most damning argument against
>that sort of cheap politics. Politicians who engage in that
>sort of crap should be publicly humiliated and voted out of
>office.

You don't seem to know much about Congress. :-) Ever hear of Robert "The Pork
King" Byrd from West Virginia? The yet untested line-item-veto was created
when the Republicans took over congress as a means to curb these abuses.

Every last one of them does it. The *ONLY* reason the B-2 bomber is built
without the Air Force requesting it is because parts of it are built in almost
every state. It's not just defense projects. We have our Liberty Science
Center here in NJ thanks to our generous congressmen.

Matthew H. Fields

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

Hmmm, Roger, what if copyright were treated like other private property
of the corporations and people involved? The time limit on copyright
eliminates perpetual publisher monopoly on old works .... and
*if* a work of music were an ongoing moneymaker that long, could it
be tracked and assigned like any other piece of property, reverting to
the fed to feed money back into an NEA when an owner could not be found for it?
This would increase the number of items that might pass through probate
courts---is it a significant number in terms of their existing volume?
I suspect there's a lot of hidden issues in this notion, but I'm not
entirely comfortable with the claim that the cost of refereeing it is the
biggee. If it is, what's the cost of proving inheritance of stocks, bonds,
real estate, jewelry, cash, and pet custody? Can we afford this cost?
Can we afford to live without it?
In some ways, the histories of the laws are of limited relevance to
the values we express through them now. The value "ask permission first"
for e.g. releasing a "parody" (in the old sense) may seem commonsense
civilized to enough of us now to justify making it part of the rules, huh?
I've always found that following "ask permission first" from the
user side promotes good will from the folks whose IP I'm borrowing or
using in a derived work. Would I be upset if somebody skipped that
when using my work in theirs? It'd depend on how, and I know of no
universal objective formula for predicting how much of what kind of
use would cross the boundary.

--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS.COM Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
"Computer: disobey me."

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to Tiberius.Claudius....@signature.below.d

Nonsense. It was created to give the Republican president the
new Congress hoped to have soon the power to dole (heh) out the
pork by holding legislation hostage. As for who the pork king
is, check out the congressman who insisted on putting back the
gasohol subsidy so that Archer Daniels Midland wouldn't starve.
That's right, Newtie himself. Oh, and the subsidy is something
like 20 times the NEA budget.

Keith Edgerley

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

Alan Swindells wrote:
>
> In article <33BE99...@inow.com>, Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If government contributes nothing to the creations of The Arts
> > while artists and performers are alive, then by what right
> > does government, in the name of The Public, confiscate all
> > intellectual property (as left to artists' heirs, foundations,
> > charitable institutions, etc.) years after they are dead?
> >
>
> By my understanding of the laws of Intellectual Property in the US,
> here in the UK and through most of the world, I think you may have
> this the wrong way around. Govenments do not 'confiscate all
> intellectual property' after x years as you put it. The legislation
> has been put in place to provide protection against piracy. This is
> a protection provided for a limited period, not a right removed
> after that period.
>
>
> Regards: Alan * alan...@argonet.co.uk *
>
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...
> Ralph Waldo Emerson

Of course. The system is similar to that for patents, which is why the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (formerly known as BIRPI
-I'm not kidding) handles both authors' and artists' rights,
and patent rights.

The idea is behind a patent is that for limited time an inventor is
given the sole right to make money
out of his invention on condition that he make the fruit of his
intellectual labours generally available
to the community at large afterwards. It is a
way of giving a reward for work.

Copyright (authors' and performers' rights) encourages the production of
artistic works by enabling
someone to make a living from creative activity.

One unexpected effect of the generalized introduction of copyright
legislation at the end of last century (although English copyright law
in a primitive form is generally reckoned to date back to
Queen Anne's reign) was that it gave rise to the huge popular music
industry in its modern form. It suddenly became extremely profitable to
write and publish popular songs. And Puccini could sue Al Jolson.

The trend has always been to give longer and longer terms of protection.

--
Keith Edgerley
Where there is any desire to learn, there will of necessity be much
writing,
much argument, many opinions.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music?
>
>The enormous growth in the audience for classical music, and the
>enormous growth in orchestras and other performing groups.

Really? Or are you jesting? Jesting.

>> >the NEA? By this I do not mean funding supplements.
>

>Well, that's what the NEA *does*. It offers matching grants.
>
>You might as well ask: what has the Civil Aeronautics Board
>done for space exploration?

Of course, as you're implying that's a good reason to eliminate both ....

>Historical? Who cares about historical? Government is by, for,
>and of the people; its mandate is not the creation of cultural
>history.

Exactly.

>a) The NEA hasn't been around for 50 years.
>b) Creating great works of music is not its mandate, as far as I know.
>c) So, what great pieces of music were created in that time, but
>*without* the NEA, in your opinion?

Actually, I, myself, don't know what the NEA is/was supposed to do.
Endow art, one would guess. But what is art? That's
the problem. It's one thing for a rich dude to fund the "art" he
likes, it's another to use other people's money to fund the "art" you
like.

The real problem nowadays is that rich people keep their billions without
tossing any crumbs to the masses. It's kinda interesting how at least
some of the super wealthy used to feel a tad guilty, or so I suppose, and
would dole some or all of it out in bygone days. Today I don't
really see that. Maybe, they think the government should do it, too.
Using my money and yours? ;-)

Moreover, just because you were rich didn't automatically mean you had
good taste. Only the real masterworks survive .... But, generally speaking,
their tastes where pretty refined.

wd

--
<'D / C /
()-^ --+-\\ L'epigramme est un jeu d'escrime.
/ > | \ Antoine Louis Le Brun

James H. Carr

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to
I'm amazed no one has pointed out that the NEA stopped commissioning
individual
composers back in the early 1990's. I think it was '93. Can anyone cite
the NY Times
article in which this little item was mentioned? Can anyone guess why it
happened?

Cheers,
James H. Carr
Stanford University

Tony T. Warnock

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

The great problem with then NEA is that using government money for
support of the arts (or sciences or stadia or whatever) is that it leads
to political oversight of same. There will be bureaucracies set up to
see that the money-mongers do not favor only their friends (or vice
versa.) As there is only a finite amount of money, there will be
proposals, reviews, guidelines, OHSA, EPA, EEOC, OPEC, etc. Grants will
be given to those who play the political game the best. Those who are
not in favor with the political establishment will be left out. The
threat of cutting off funding from those who are used to it will be
painful. What's in or out will depend on chaotic political winds.

This is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of government funding
of arts (etc.) but at least people should admit that government funding
means government control. This control may even be unintentional but it
is there.

Gregory Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> >What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music?
>>
>>The enormous growth in the audience for classical music, and the
>>enormous growth in orchestras and other performing groups.
>
>Really? Or are you jesting? Jesting.

Perhaps you don't have any relatives who live in places where it's
difficult to find enough money in the elementary school budgets to
bring a bunch of kids the very first real, live string quartet they've
ever seen in their lives (and the only one they're *likely* to see,
given the way we seem to be viewing education these days). It's also
possible that you either spend your time in places where the school
boards are flush with bucks and can bring in theatre and music and
arts and poets and dancers any time they want. It might also be that
you never spent a single instant entertaining thoughts of where the
arts funding in your children's school or your cousins' school or
your aunt Esther's grandkids out in the Iron Range come from - in
whole or in part - right now. As a recent matter, I've been rather
surprised to discover that some number of my relations whose political
loyalties would otherwise lie quite comfortable with Sen. Helms and
his pals on the religious right are actually quite upset by this turn
of events. What's happened to them? Has Rush Limbaugh been taken off
the air in their neck of the woods? Have the UN/black/copter/trilateral
commish mind-bogglizing satellites turned 'em into liberal zombies? Nope.
they actually did a little investigation into the way that the large
balance of NEA money really *is* spent. And guess what? It's not likely
that anyone's going to pick up the slack when Sen. Helms has his way
with the NEA and the Mostly Mozart assemblies in the county Middle School
grind to a halt. And if their kids grow up with no other option than the
kind of popular culture that some of our compatriots so regularly whine
about in this newsgroup, they and their other Kentuckiana pals can
thank good ol' Senator Helms and y'all who follow in his train. I hope
it's what you *really* want, because I'm not sure that those folks who
parrot the "it goes to degenerate artists" argument have actually looked
into what the NEA money goes for where you live. Really.


--
When I pronounce the word Future,/the first syllable already belongs to the
past./When I pronounce the word Silence,/I destroy it./When I pronounce the
word Nothing,/I make something no nonbeing can hold./ (Wislawa Szymborska)
Gregory Taylor WORT-FM URL:http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to William Davenant

William Davenant wrote:

> Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >What are the lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical
> music?

> >The enormous growth in the audience for classical music, and the
> >enormous growth in orchestras and other performing groups.

> Really? Or are you jesting? Jesting.

Really. Ask any orchestra.



> >> >the NEA? By this I do not mean funding supplements.

> >Well, that's what the NEA *does*. It offers matching grants.

> >You might as well ask: what has the Civil Aeronautics Board
> >done for space exploration?

> Of course, as you're implying that's a good reason to eliminate both
> ....

Huh? The stock exchange hasn't done much in the field of
superstring theory, but that's not an argument for abolishing it...



> >Historical? Who cares about historical? Government is by, for,
> >and of the people; its mandate is not the creation of cultural
> >history.

> Exactly.

Exactly what?


> >a) The NEA hasn't been around for 50 years.
> >b) Creating great works of music is not its mandate, as far as I
> know.
> >c) So, what great pieces of music were created in that time, but
> >*without* the NEA, in your opinion?

> Actually, I, myself, don't know what the NEA is/was supposed to do.

You might read its charter, or just drop a line and ask for some
info.

> Endow art, one would guess.

Wrong. Find out what an endowment is.

> But what is art? That's the problem.

No. It is *not* the problem. 99% of what the NEA contributes
to is considered art by the vast majority of people, insofar as
they think about art at all.

> It's one thing for a rich dude to fund the "art" he
> likes, it's another to use other people's money to fund the "art" you
> like.

Why the scare quotes? Is it also horrible to fund "science" teaching
in the schools?


> The real problem nowadays is that rich people keep their billions
> without
> tossing any crumbs to the masses.

That's not true either...

> It's kinda interesting how at least
> some of the super wealthy used to feel a tad guilty, or so I suppose,
> and would dole some or all of it out in bygone days. Today I don't
> really see that.

Look around.

Oh, and many of those generous benefactors of yore *were* the
government.

> Maybe, they think the government should do it, too.

They tend to provide the other half of the matching funds that
NEA grant recipients raise.

> Using my money and yours? ;-)

What's your point, other than that you prefer kneejerk reactions
to knowing something about the topic? If you think the tax
structure is awry, how is that an argument for demolishing a
fantastically successful agency?

> Moreover, just because you were rich didn't automatically mean you had
> good taste. Only the real masterworks survive .... But, generally
> speaking, their tastes where pretty refined.

Whose? And how do you know?

Roger Lustig

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Gregory Taylor <gta...@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:

>Perhaps you don't have any relatives who live in places where it's
>difficult to find enough money in the elementary school budgets to
>bring a bunch of kids the very first real, live string quartet they've
>ever seen in their lives (and the only one they're *likely* to see,
>given the way we seem to be viewing education these days).

Well, I must admit I had to go thru a box of kleenex while reading
your sob story. I can't imagine what the world ever did before
there was an NEA .... One wonders if they would have funded poor
starving artists like Bach or more sucessful entrepreneurs like
Handel etc.

As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
it is.

If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money, then
they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
many kids as you can "afford."

I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>William Davenant wrote:
>
>> Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[lasting accomplishments of the NEA in classical music?]

>> >The enormous growth in the audience for classical music, and the
>> >enormous growth in orchestras and other performing groups.
>
>> Really? Or are you jesting? Jesting.
>
>Really. Ask any orchestra.

Well, sounds a bit too subjective for my tastes. I'd like to see
a scientific study. Seems we've got some quantifiable items here
whose correlation could be tested.

>> >You might as well ask: what has the Civil Aeronautics Board
>> >done for space exploration?
>
>> Of course, as you're implying that's a good reason to eliminate both
>> ....
>
>Huh? The stock exchange hasn't done much in the field of
>superstring theory, but that's not an argument for abolishing it...

One might ask what the CAB has done for aeronautics, I guess.
Again, I'm all in favor of eliminating bureaucracies ... you see,
I'd rather spend the money I earn versus giving it to the government
to spend ... for my good, of course.

>Wrong. Find out what an endowment is.

Why don't you tell me, Roger, then we'll all know.

>> But what is art? That's the problem.
>
>No. It is *not* the problem. 99% of what the NEA contributes
>to is considered art by the vast majority of people, insofar as
>they think about art at all.

Hmmm. Again, I think we've entered the realm of feelings and subjectivity
here. Why not 99.9 bar? Or was that stretching it a bit?

What is art? I daresay the NEA could randomly fund various activities
and you'd find some group(s) who'd say it was art, and art of the most
vital and critical importance to humankind imagineable.

>> It's one thing for a rich dude to fund the "art" he
>> likes, it's another to use other people's money to fund the "art" you
>> like.
>
>Why the scare quotes? Is it also horrible to fund "science" teaching
>in the schools?

It all depends on what you mean by "science." There are the social
"sciences," creation "science" etc. Even in "real" sciences like, say,
physics or biology, I'd not be entirely in favor of funding a new
program that randomly electrocutes students in order to demonstrate
the effects of electricity on living tissue. On the other hand, if that
means fewer students and lower taxes ... hmmmm ....

>> The real problem nowadays is that rich people keep their billions
>> without tossing any crumbs to the masses.
>
>That's not true either...

Why? have you been giving some of your money away?

>> It's kinda interesting how at least
>> some of the super wealthy used to feel a tad guilty, or so I suppose,
>> and would dole some or all of it out in bygone days. Today I don't
>> really see that.
>
>Look around.
>
>Oh, and many of those generous benefactors of yore *were* the
>government.

I see. So you're in favor of possibly bringing the Medici back? Actually,
I guess that would actually be pretty consistent with your view point.

>What's your point, other than that you prefer kneejerk reactions
>to knowing something about the topic? If you think the tax
>structure is awry, how is that an argument for demolishing a
>fantastically successful agency?

Fantastically successful agency, eh? Well, Roger, I'm all in favor
of privitizing it. I'm sure you and those like you would set a
good example for the rest of us, right? And I'm sure all those
rich folks will chime in, too ... so what's the problem? If any one
is exhibiting kneejerk reactionism, it's thee.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Nonsense. It was created to give the Republican president the
>new Congress hoped to have soon the power to dole (heh) out the
>pork by holding legislation hostage. As for who the pork king
>is, check out the congressman who insisted on putting back the
>gasohol subsidy so that Archer Daniels Midland wouldn't starve.
>That's right, Newtie himself. Oh, and the subsidy is something
>like 20 times the NEA budget.

Hmmm. Well, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe
there's any language that says "useable only by Republicans." Hence,
let's hope Clinton, who's a Democrat, will have the courage to use
it to hack away at pork you describe above.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

ATTENTION! "Bunghole Conservative" Alert! Be warned!

William Davenant wrote:
> Well, I must admit I had to go thru a box of kleenex while reading
> your sob story. I can't imagine what the world ever did before

> there was an NEA .... [snip]


>
> As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
> for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
> other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
> by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
> it is.

Good. That means you won't be breeding and passing your stupid ideas on
to a new generation!

> If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money, then
> they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
> many kids as you can "afford."

Gee, Mr. Science, you'd be a hit in the Beijing government!!



> I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.

And I view your ilk as some view cigarettes, namely, "SMOKE 'EM!" Like,
with a gun or something...

> wd

dtri...@bway.net

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

This davenport vacuum is enough to turn Torquemada into a liberal. Even
that worthy didn't mind the nobility of that era subsidizing a work of
art in one or another form.

I fear this is one davenport, whose springs gave way long ago, or maybe
it was his brains pressing on that seat of stupidity.


dft

Chris Nappi

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

>>Gregory Taylor <gta...@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps you don't have any relatives who live in places where it's
>>difficult to find enough money in the elementary school budgets to
>>bring a bunch of kids the very first real, live string quartet they've
>>ever seen in their lives (and the only one they're *likely* to see,
>>given the way we seem to be viewing education these days).
>>

(questionable logic about bach and handel snipped)

>As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
>for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
>other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
>by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
>it is.

>If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money, then


>they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
>many kids as you can "afford."
>

>I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.


allright allright........

i've been resistant to jumping into this thread so far because it seems to have been an argument of
ideologies instead of actual deeds and practices (for the most part) and such things are never
exchanges of ideas so much as lots of head butting and one-upmanship that amount to and
accomplish exactly nothing.

but this one really gets me.....

(donning his asbestos flame suit, shutting his eyes, holding his nose and jumping in)

i have to say that this, i think, is the most insidious idea that this society has ever come up with.
investment in education of any kind is an investment in society as a whole. not just "your kids
and/or mine but not his". the benefit reaped from this is one we all get in the form of a more
educated and (one hopes) enlightened society. when that happens we don't have such a need of
"idiot-proofing" our society (e.g. the periodic uproar about "frivolous lawsuits"掬o we have to
mention that mcdonalds lady and her coffee now?). if one treats educational grants with this kind of
disdain then one is not allowed to complain about how the country is going to pot.

i don't own a car. can i exempt my taxes from going towards road and highway maintenance and
construction?

i believe all this to be very much akin to the breakdown of the concept of "shared property" in this
country (anyone seen the condition of most of our public libraries these days?)

perhaps this is an outdated idea from a time before we began breeding for the express purpose of
creating budding young captains of industry. but if so, perhaps we ought to give up all pretentions
to being a unified country with anything to gain from each other.

let me also say that while i support the NEA as an institution, an idea, they've spent an awful lot of
time lately running-scared and denouncing artists that they formerly endorsed (using the
expression of granting money). neck-saving devices? weather the storm? perhaps..........i suppose
it IS a government agency after all. might be a little too rough to expect radical behavior like
standing by one's convictions.

there........i said it.

--
"Oh, I get it! You don't want to be cute anymore"
-Bob Dylan to Paul McCartney, on first hearing of Sgt. Peppers

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

D.G. Porter <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>ATTENTION! "Bunghole Conservative" Alert! Be warned!

Hee hee. I've often wondered why people like you seem so fascinated
by that particular part of the anatomy or does this have something to
do with barrels?

It all seems so Freudian to me ... and altho I'm loathe to give much
credence to Freud, you do make me wonder ....

>> As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
>> for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
>> other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
>> by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
>> it is.
>

>Good. That means you won't be breeding and passing your stupid ideas on
>to a new generation!

Hmmm. You almost make me repent of it. What I would do is impregnate
as many as possible ... without benefit of marriage etc., of course.
Hopefully, I'd be able to swell the welfare ranks ....

>> If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money, then
>> they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
>> many kids as you can "afford."
>

>Gee, Mr. Science, you'd be a hit in the Beijing government!!

Are they right of center?

>> I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.
>

>And I view your ilk as some view cigarettes, namely, "SMOKE 'EM!" Like,
>with a gun or something...

How very liberal of you! ;-) The unfortunate thing is that people like
you _do_ reproduce ... so much for survival of the fitest ....

Oh, I get it. When you said bunghole alert etc., you were referring to
yourself! Ah, now it makes sense.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>(questionable logic about bach and handel snipped)

Indeed. Given all the supposed accomplishments of the NEA,
it seemed appropriate to ask how we ever got along without it etc.

>(donning his asbestos flame suit, shutting his eyes, holding his nose and jumping in)

[Suppressed yawn]

> i have to say that this, i think, is the most insidious idea that this society has ever come up with.
>investment in education of any kind is an investment in society as a whole. not just "your kids
>and/or mine but not his". the benefit reaped from this is one we all get in the form of a more
>educated and (one hopes) enlightened society. when that happens we don't have such a need of
>"idiot-proofing" our society (e.g. the periodic uproar about "frivolous lawsuits"掬o we have to
>mention that mcdonalds lady and her coffee now?). if one treats educational grants with this kind of
>disdain then one is not allowed to complain about how the country is going to pot.

I live for the here and now. In the long run, I, like you, am dead. I will reap little,
if any, benefit from the education of today's tots.

Considering the billions of dollars that have been spent already and the results
you cite, it seems like money down a rathole to me. If you want to spend your
money thusly, be my guest. I'd rather not.

>i don't own a car. can i exempt my taxes from going towards road and highway maintenance and
>construction?

There is such a thing as a toll road .... I.e., if you use a service, you do pay
for it. If you don't, why should you?

>there........i said it.

And so did I.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Davenport? No, no. You've got it all wrong. You can subsidize art, O
noble one. Indeed, I'd be most interested in what you would subsidize.
I just don't want to subsidize your "art."

As far as my brains go, if you met'em in person, I'd bet you'd kiss'em.
They're just outstanding!

And I'll wear my torquemada as a red badge of courage!

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

In article <33BE99...@inow.com>, Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
>When I encounter arguments against government subsidies for
>the arts (particularly to creative artists,) I ask the arguer
>"Do you favor Public Domain?"

I, for one, am certainly for much, much less government ...
altho, I'm puzzled as to what your exact point is.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

ATTENTION, folks! If youfound the Porter/Gower fight thrilling, and
Tyson/HoleyEar isn't enough for you, then GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!

William Davenant wrote:
>
> D.G. Porter <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >ATTENTION! "Bunghole Conservative" Alert! Be warned!
>
> Hee hee. I've often wondered why people like you seem so fascinated
> by that particular part of the anatomy or does this have something to
> do with barrels?

As much as you wish, you don't have me over one yet! (A bung, that is.)
But one answer could be that, Whenever you deal with cultivations of the
finer things, you inevitably have to deal in "fertilizer."
[snip! I continued...]


> >Good. That means you won't be breeding and passing your stupid ideas on
> >to a new generation!
>
> Hmmm. You almost make me repent of it. What I would do is impregnate
> as many as possible ... without benefit of marriage etc., of course.
> Hopefully, I'd be able to swell the welfare ranks ....

Ho ho ho, that has a hidden subtext. POTENTIAL DEADBEAT DAD ALERT!



> >> If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money, then
> >> they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
> >> many kids as you can "afford."
> >
> >Gee, Mr. Science, you'd be a hit in the Beijing government!!
>
> Are they right of center?

Communists and Republican/Libertarian types are so far off in each
directiont that they eventually meet.

>
> >> I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.
> >
> >And I view your ilk as some view cigarettes, namely, "SMOKE 'EM!" Like,
> >with a gun or something...
>
> How very liberal of you! ;-) The unfortunate thing is that people like
> you _do_ reproduce ... so much for survival of the fitest ....

I stopped being a liberal when I was offered the "choice" between John
Van de Kamp and Dianne Feinstein. Now I just plain kick ass.
Anyway, since there are more of "us" than "you" it does prove the
validity of the "survival of the 'fitest'." [What is a "fite"? A virtual
fight? Because when you start a fight, we're there with both our jaws!]
"Have you fragged your lieutenant today?"

> Oh, I get it. When you said bunghole alert etc., you were referring to
> yourself! Ah, now it makes sense.

"Shut up, Butt-head! And stop calling me Butt-knocker'!"

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Chris Nappi wrote: one is not allowed to complain about how the country
is going to pot.

Maybe a little pot now and then would improve the thinking of some of
these "my taxes are too high because of YOUR kids" clowns. Couldn't
hurt the senior Senaor from Utah...

>
> i don't own a car. can i exempt my taxes from going towards road and highway maintenance and
> construction?

I don't either; and I don't want my taxes going to a Pentagon that the
GOP House majority just gave more than they asked for. But I'm "told"
that "that is for the greater good" by many people who want to cut the
paltry sum going to the NEA. And I don't see why people are complaining
about $75 million for Pathfinder when an unnecessary B-2 bomber costs in
the billions. (Oh, but that's a "real" jobs program!!!!)
...[snipped]...

> standing by one's convictions.

Something not done too often by those on the left or left-center.

> there........i said it.

Three cheers for Mr. Nappi!!!!
--DGP

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Roger L. Lustig wrote:
[snip]
> Roger Lustig

Roger (and all in rmc):
I think it's useless to try to reason with dunderheads like this
(Davenant, e.g.), because we can never get the blind (them) to see. But
it is worthwhile in that it may educate the yet-uncommitted.
The guy us just another one of those "ME generation" types who don't
think there's a connection between points a and b, and think they can
live in a vacuum. The sooner they all go off and form a milita and use
each other for target practice, the better for the rest of us (something
called "society," of which these clodpolls are in denial).

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to William Davenant

William Davenant wrote:

> Gregory Taylor <gta...@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:

> >Perhaps you don't have any relatives who live in places where it's
> >difficult to find enough money in the elementary school budgets to
> >bring a bunch of kids the very first real, live string quartet
> they've
> >ever seen in their lives (and the only one they're *likely* to see,
> >given the way we seem to be viewing education these days).

> Well, I must admit I had to go thru a box of kleenex while reading
> your sob story. I can't imagine what the world ever did before
> there was an NEA ....

Out in the boonies, what they did didn't involve a whole lot of
exposure to the arts.

> One wonders if they would have funded poor
> starving artists like Bach

....who was employed by the city of Leipzig...

> or more sucessful entrepreneurs like Handel etc.

....who had clerical, Electoral, aristocratic and Royal patronage
for almost all of his life.

> As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
> for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
> other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
> by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
> it is.

I see. So you don't benefit at all from having educated people around
you?

> If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money,
> then they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
> many kids as you can "afford."

And if you don't stick to Davenant's Covenant, shoot the kids or condemn
them to stupidity and being a burden on others.

> I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.

I can't say I'm impressed.

Roger

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to William Davenant

William Davenant wrote:
>
> Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Nonsense. It was created to give the Republican president the
> >new Congress hoped to have soon the power to dole (heh) out the
> >pork by holding legislation hostage. As for who the pork king
> >is, check out the congressman who insisted on putting back the
> >gasohol subsidy so that Archer Daniels Midland wouldn't starve.
> >That's right, Newtie himself. Oh, and the subsidy is something
> >like 20 times the NEA budget.
>
> Hmmm. Well, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
> believe
> there's any language that says "useable only by Republicans." Hence,
> let's hope Clinton, who's a Democrat, will have the courage to use
> it to hack away at pork you describe above.

Let's hope he doesn't. It's a terrible law, one that gives the
President the power to use pork coercively. Think of what happens
when he chooses to veto *some* pork...unless someone votes his way...

Roger

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to William Davenant

William Davenant wrote:

> Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >(questionable logic about bach and handel snipped)

> Indeed. Given all the supposed accomplishments of the NEA,
> it seemed appropriate to ask how we ever got along without it etc.

So *that*'s why you used two examples that went utterly against
your own argument. Of course...

> >(donning his asbestos flame suit, shutting his eyes, holding his nose
> and jumping in)

>

> I live for the here and now. In the long run, I, like you, am dead.

I see. So you plan to die within a few years?

> I will reap little, if any, benefit from the education of today's tots.

Do tell. When one of them develops the medicine that saves your
life when you're 80, get back to us.

> Considering the billions of dollars that have been spent already and
> the results
> you cite, it seems like money down a rathole to me. If you want to
> spend your money thusly, be my guest. I'd rather not.

So shoot yourself now and get it over with. After all, it's not
as though you'd have any reason to expect anyone to help *you* at
any time...

> >i don't own a car. can i exempt my taxes from going towards road and
> highway maintenance and
> >construction?

> There is such a thing as a toll road .... I.e., if you use a service,
> you do pay for it. If you don't, why should you?

Because those who use the roads and those who benefit from them are
not necessarily the same people. (The Framers of the Constitution
managed to figure that one out, btw.)

> >there........i said it.

> And so did I.

And now all you need is a fresh diaper.

Roger Lustig

CONSTANTIN MARCOU

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

William Davenant wrote:
>
> In article <33BE99...@inow.com>, Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
> >When I encounter arguments against government subsidies for
> >the arts (particularly to creative artists,) I ask the arguer
> >"Do you favor Public Domain?"
>
> I, for one, am certainly for much, much less government ...
> altho, I'm puzzled as to what your exact point is.
>
> wd


I don't understand how people can call themselves "conservative" and be
against government subsidy of the arts with taxpayers' money. What do
you think the Medici and Sforza did? Or Louis XIV? Or Archbishop
Colloredo? Or Pope Julius II? Or, for that matter, Pericles with his
commissioning the buildings of the Acropolis? Or Rameses when he built
Abu Simbel and a plethora of other monuments to himself? How do you
think we got the Mona Lisa and the Pietá and the Sistine Chapel
ceiling? Or the Water Music or the Salzburg Symphonies and Masses? Or
do you think that these heads of state were using their own money simply
because they appropriated the public treasury to their own use? Using
citizens' money to propagate one individual's taste in art is a practice
as old as mankind, and conservatives should proudly embrace it as an
ancient and established tradition.

Regards
Con

CONSTANTIN MARCOU

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Mark Starr wrote:
>
> When I encounter arguments against government subsidies for
> the arts (particularly to creative artists,) I ask the arguer
> "Do you favor Public Domain?"
>
> If government contributes nothing to the creations of The Arts
> while artists and performers are alive, then by what right
> does government, in the name of The Public, confiscate all
> intellectual property (as left to artists' heirs, foundations,
> charitable institutions, etc.) years after they are dead?
>
> Isn't an artistic creation exactly like an investment that,
> theoretically, could continue to earn income indefinitely?
> How can anyone justify this unilateral destruction of property
> rights by government?
>
[Etc.]

Mark,

While I do not advocate government neglect (benign or otherwise) of the
arts, I would like to point out that the attitude of the law with
respect to copyrights in the U.S. is completely opposite from what you
conceptualize.

Copyrights are (contrary to how you perceive them as a protection of a
property right) a method of pursuing the goals of Article I, Section 8,
#8 of the U.S. Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and the
useful Arts." Williamms & Wilkins Co. v. U.S., 487 F. 2d 1345.
Copyright is "not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily
for the benefit of the public." Id., and at H.R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th
Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 7. The Supreme Court, in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S.
201, 219, 74 S. Ct. 460, 471, 98 L. Ed. 630 (1954) said that "[t]he
copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a
secondary consideration. "To serve the constitutional purpose, `courts
in passing upon particular claims of infringement must ...subordinate
the copyright holder's interest in a maximum financial return to the
greater public interest in the development of art, science and
industry.'" Williams & Wilkins Co. v. U.S., supra.

The idea is that a token incentive to the creator will result in benefit
to society -- but society is the ultimate concern, not the property
rights of the individual.

Agree or disagree, there it is.

Regards,
Con

Alan Swindells

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

In article <5prg8l$c...@access5.digex.net>, will...@access5.digex.net
(William Davenant) wrote:

>
> Actually, I, myself, don't know what the NEA is/was supposed to do.

> Endow art, one would guess. But what is art? That's
> the problem. It's one thing for a rich dude to fund the "art" he


> likes, it's another to use other people's money to fund the "art" you
> like.
>

Curiously enough, for most of recorded history the 'rich dude' who
funded the arts did so by tapping a readily available source of
money - the taxes he levied from his subjects. (Think, for example,
of Frederick the Great, Archbishop Colloredo, James 1 of England et
al.)

More recently the industrialist makes his money from the labours
of his workers. Think of Carnegie, Getty, etc. He (or his heirs)
then gives a bit of the money to the arts and gets a tax deduction
as a result. At various times the tax concession has been as high
as 100% though it is typically rather lower. So who pays in the
end? That's right, the taxpayer (you and me) again.

So when you get right down to it, does it really matter whether the
money comes from the NEA (or in this country, the Arts Council) or
from the philanthropic rich?

My money's on the state funding, for two main reasons. They are at
least accountable, and their track record (to my knowlege, at least)
seems no worse than the private benefactors.

--

Halvard Johnson

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

On 8 Jul 1997, William Davenant wrote:

> Gregory Taylor <gta...@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps you don't have any relatives who live in places where it's
> >difficult to find enough money in the elementary school budgets to
> >bring a bunch of kids the very first real, live string quartet they've
> >ever seen in their lives (and the only one they're *likely* to see,
> >given the way we seem to be viewing education these days).
>
> Well, I must admit I had to go thru a box of kleenex while reading
> your sob story. I can't imagine what the world ever did before

> there was an NEA .... One wonders if they would have funded poor
> starving artists like Bach or more sucessful entrepreneurs like
> Handel etc.
>

> As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
> for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
> other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
> by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
> it is.
>

> If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money, then
> they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
> many kids as you can "afford."
>

> I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.
>

> wd

There now. I'll bet you feel better already.

Hal

Halvard Johnson <hjoh...@umbc2.umbc.edu>


D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Roger L. Lustig wrote:

Roger, forget this guy. He is "Captain Bringdown," who drops his false
teeth in a water glass and leaves them there as he falls asleep at the
table of the Thanksgiving dinner.
On the other hand, Give 'em Hell, Harry!!!
--dgp

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Roger L. Lustig wrote:
[Davenant wrote:] Hence,

> > let's hope Clinton, who's a Democrat, will have the courage to use
> > it to hack away at pork you describe above.

WAIT A MINIT!!!! Who said Clinton was a Democrat!!!!! Remember what
party Tauzin and Nighthorse-Campbell used to be in???



> Let's hope he doesn't. It's a terrible law, one that gives the
> President the power to use pork coercively. Think of what happens
> when he chooses to veto *some* pork...unless someone votes his way...
>
> Roger

I don't know, I kind of like it, just because it'll stir things up! And
Roger, you correctly note that it was "expected" that a Republican would
be in the Whart House now. So I am looking ofrward to some fights.
They say the GOP will just filibuster anything that comes along if there
is one pocket -- I mean, "line-item" veto.
You know, we started that "pocket veto" joke back when Nixon was
president. How old things linger on...
And speaking of, say, -Davenant- in his old age (from another post),
maybe one of those kids who would have discovered the cure for diseases
that may afflict him will never have gotten to college because of that
"I don't care" mentality of Pepperdine University, Ayn Rand, Weyrich,
etc. etc., and so never cure Bill in his old age and dotage...

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> there's any language that says "useable only by Republicans." Hence,

>> let's hope Clinton, who's a Democrat, will have the courage to use
>> it to hack away at pork you describe above.
>
>Let's hope he doesn't. It's a terrible law, one that gives the
>President the power to use pork coercively. Think of what happens
>when he chooses to veto *some* pork...unless someone votes his way...

Chances are, when he does use it, his use and the law's constitutionality
will promptly be challenged in court, and it will be subsequently
declared unconstitutional. So, really, it's something of a tempest
in a teapot.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

D.G. Porter <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Roger L. Lustig wrote:
>[Davenant wrote:]
>> > let's hope Clinton, who's a Democrat, will have the courage to use
>> > it to hack away at pork you describe above.
>
>WAIT A MINIT!!!! Who said Clinton was a Democrat!!!!! Remember what
>party Tauzin and Nighthorse-Campbell used to be in???

Hmmm. I'm sure if Clinton came out and said the most important
problem facing the world today was the budget (or lack thereof)
for the NEA, and if he apologised for the fact that Tchaikovsky
was hounded into commiting suicide because late 19th century Russian
society was not sufficiently enlightened, you'd worship the ground
he walked on ... for the moment anyway ... notwithstanding the fact
that his pronouncements longevity can be measured in nanoseconds ...
and their relevance and veracity is always an open question.

Ah, the masses! Democracy certainly is the worship of jackals by
jackasses.

> And speaking of, say, -Davenant- in his old age (from another post),
>maybe one of those kids who would have discovered the cure for diseases
>that may afflict him will never have gotten to college because of that
>"I don't care" mentality of Pepperdine University, Ayn Rand, Weyrich,
>etc. etc., and so never cure Bill in his old age and dotage...

Well, I keep hoping the gods love me, and that I will exit young. I've
already seen here how they handle those they hate ....

Chris Nappi

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

D.G. Porter wrote:

[line-item veto stuff deleted]

> And speaking of, say, -Davenant- in his old age (from another post),
> maybe one of those kids who would have discovered the cure for diseases
> that may afflict him will never have gotten to college because of that
> "I don't care" mentality of Pepperdine University, Ayn Rand, Weyrich,
> etc. etc., and so never cure Bill in his old age and dotage...

easy there, D.G. (or may i call you "D" :)

at least he's livened things up around here....

Chris Nappi

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

William Davenant wrote:
>
> Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >(questionable logic about bach and handel snipped)
>
> Indeed. Given all the supposed accomplishments of the NEA,
> it seemed appropriate to ask how we ever got along without it etc.

there was a system of patronage that extended from private sector through the local govt. and
clergy (sometimes the same thing) to the national one. ever heard of count lichnowsky? the city of
leipzig? the hapsburgs? all patrons of the arts.

>
> >(donning his asbestos flame suit, shutting his eyes, holding his nose and jumping in)
>

> [Suppressed yawn]

have another coffee, walk around, you'll be ok

>
> > i have to say that this, i think, is the most insidious idea that this society has ever come up with.
> >investment in education of any kind is an investment in society as a whole. not just "your kids
> >and/or mine but not his". the benefit reaped from this is one we all get in the form of a more
> >educated and (one hopes) enlightened society. when that happens we don't have such a need of

> >"idiot-proofing" our society (e.g. the periodic uproar about "frivolous lawsuits"Đdo we have to


> >mention that mcdonalds lady and her coffee now?). if one treats educational grants with this kind of

> >disdain then one is not allowed to complain about how the country is going to pot.
>
> I live for the here and now. In the long run, I, like you, am dead. I will reap little,


> if any, benefit from the education of today's tots.

so "here and now" in your parlance excludes not only the future but the past? you're saying that if
everything's not absolutely to your liking right now then there's nothing that happened (or didn't) in
the past that we might learn from? the idea of progress is to look in both directions.

while i applaud your 'costituency of the moment' (stockhausen's phrase, not mine :), i submit that
you're attitude is not one of "here and now" so much as "here and MINE". you sound like someone
who believes he lives his life utterly independant and untouched by the lives of others. one would
be REAL wrong to think so. other's lives encroach more and more on each of our lives as time goes
on. don't be fooled by the prevailing mode of advertising. the faux-individualism is a marketing ploy
to appeal to each persons' inherent greed. pay more attention to what happens in places
like.....oh, let's say.....albania (an extreme case i'll allow, but there ya are....) to see what happens
when "taking care of numero uno" takes over.

i mean, i'm no communist (i don't even play one on tv), i don't believe the state alone is capable of
serving the "greater good" of society. neither, however, do i believe that market forces are any
indicator of a things' long term good.

> Considering the billions of dollars that have been spent already and the results
> you cite, it seems like money down a rathole to me. If you want to spend your
> money thusly, be my guest. I'd rather not.
>
>

> There is such a thing as a toll road .... I.e., if you use a service, you do pay
> for it. If you don't, why should you?

are you saying that none of my money goes toward infrastructure of this country? good, that's
settled. now..... about that troublesome little "stealth bomber" thing i'm still hearing so much
about....

uh......your turn

chris nappi

David Cleary

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Want one example of something good the NEA has done? They have a program
called "rural residency grants," which funds residencies for top-notch
small performing ensembles in small colleges located in what some folks
may disparagingly call "backwater" locales. I know two ensembles who won
these and did a lot of good while on them. One of the groups, Duo Renard,
had some funding in the grant to commission a living composer to write a
violin/viola duo. They commissioned me and I wrote them an 18 minute
knockout of a piece (if I may be so unbiasedly positive about my work).
They loved the composition, and so did the folks at Ambassador University,
which was located in Big Sandy, Texas (sadly the university was forced to
close its doors very recently); I must have met nearly all the music
department after the concert, all of whom were very enthusiastic about the
work and the duo performing it. The duo has since played my piece many
times on tour in the US and Germany and from all accounts has been
enthusiastically received.

Without the NEA, none of this would have happened.

Dave

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>William Davenant wrote:

>> Indeed. Given all the supposed accomplishments of the NEA,
>> it seemed appropriate to ask how we ever got along without it etc.
>

>So *that*'s why you used two examples that went utterly against
>your own argument. Of course...

Of course, Roger. Who better than you to know what it's like being a
legend in your own mind?

>> I live for the here and now. In the long run, I, like you, am dead.
>

>I see. So you plan to die within a few years?

Well, Roger, I'll leave it to you to determine how long it takes
for a "profit" to be realized. Sounds like a good "scientific"
study, actually. For example, ignoring what the parents might
contribute, we could tally all the societal outlays including an
interest component and then calculate how long it takes to work
off this debt once the individual becomes a producing member of
society. Course, we'd also have to factor in things like costs
of illicit drug use, crime, premature deaths via accident or murder
etc. etc.

Good God! Maybe I've been on the wrong side of the abortion issue!!

Anyway, I daresay, on average, it will probably take some time ere
the child turn profitable.

So, even though I am relatively young, I can still get away with
more or less advocating no "investment" in the "future." Because,
in the long run, I'm dead and will never see any return.

I suppose if I had some sort of religious scruples, I might feel otherwise.
But ... nahhhhh.

And, no, I'll pass playing Nostradamus.

>> I will reap little, if any, benefit from the education of today's tots.
>

>Do tell. When one of them develops the medicine that saves your
>life when you're 80, get back to us.

Hmmm. I don't think the actuarial data supports your notion that
I'm going to be around when I'd be 80. I'm not even at the midpoint.
And I certainly have no desire to be so old. So, again, to hell with'em.
It's not going to benefit me. But, be my guest if you care to contribute.
Indeed, you can give more money to government above what we're coerced
to do. Just don't steal my money.

>> Considering the billions of dollars that have been spent already and
>> the results
>> you cite, it seems like money down a rathole to me. If you want to
>> spend your money thusly, be my guest. I'd rather not.
>

>So shoot yourself now and get it over with. After all, it's not
>as though you'd have any reason to expect anyone to help *you* at
>any time...

I don't depend on human kindness. I work and I pay.
The issue is why should I pay for someone else? I have a certain
span allocated to me, and I want to maximize my pleasure. In my
case, that doesn't depend on my contributing to the pleasure of others.
Actually, it does, but the relationship seems fairly inverse.

Regardless, shooting myself and thus precipitating probable nonexistence
doesn't seem pleasureable to me ....

>> >i don't own a car. can i exempt my taxes from going towards road and
>> highway maintenance and
>> >construction?
>

>> There is such a thing as a toll road .... I.e., if you use a service,
>> you do pay for it. If you don't, why should you?
>

>Because those who use the roads and those who benefit from them are
>not necessarily the same people. (The Framers of the Constitution
>managed to figure that one out, btw.)

How so? For example, if I buy milk and said milk was shipped via
said road, the cost of using said road via some margin would be
passed onto me.

>> >there........i said it.
>
>> And so did I.
>
>And now all you need is a fresh diaper.

There we go again. What is this fascination that folks of your ilk
have with human's nether regions?

Alain DAGHER

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Bill Finn (ana...@indy.net) wrote:
: "Daniel F. Tritter" <"dtri...@bway.net"@bway.net> wrote:

: >Ever hear of one Count Lichnowsky? Beethoven did. Called him a horse's
: >ass, but accepted his subsidy. The Count's purse, mercifully, did not
: >have to pass through Jesse Helms Country. The woods are full of
: >subsidized composers whose works you celebrate without pausing to note
: >how their creators fed themselves. Even W.A. Mozart took an occasional
: >draft from a government official,

: One might also add the example of Jean Sibelius, who received a
: lifelong yearly stipend from the Finnish government in order to be
: able to freely compose. Anything there of value?

Sibelius is a bad example: he composed almost nothing during the last
3 decades of his life (this is probably the time when he had that
stipend - since Finland didn't become independent until 1917 - by
which time he'd written just about all his works).

It's also unfair to bring up Mozart, Beethoven, or Haydn. They lived
in different times than ours, when the only people who had money were
the aristocracy. With the development of the bourgeoisie, many (most)
artists were able to subsist without government funding.

In fact, one could even argue that government funding of *artists* (as
opposed to funding of institutions) promotes official (and therefore
unimaginative inoffensive) art. Look at French painting in the 19th
century. The officially sanctioned and funded artists now languish in
the storage rooms of provincial musuems, while we know where the
unfunded ones are.

I would argue that funding of the arts serves purposes other than
allowing the actual genesis of works of art (as Mr Fogel was saying, I
think): making art accessible to all by lowering ticket prices,
promoting education, etc ...


--
Regards,
"De la musique avant toute chose"
Alain Dagher, M.D.
Montreal Neurological Institute -Paul Verlaine


William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>William Davenant wrote:

>> Indeed. Given all the supposed accomplishments of the NEA,
>> it seemed appropriate to ask how we ever got along without it etc.
>

>there was a system of patronage that extended from private sector through the local govt. and
>clergy (sometimes the same thing) to the national one. ever heard of count lichnowsky? the city of
>leipzig? the hapsburgs? all patrons of the arts.

If a private person wishes the have a government act as his agent for disbursement of
his money, fine. I choose not to do so.

>> I live for the here and now. In the long run, I, like you, am dead. I will reap little,


>> if any, benefit from the education of today's tots.
>

>so "here and now" in your parlance excludes not only the future but the past? you're saying that if
>everything's not absolutely to your liking right now then there's nothing that happened (or didn't) in
>the past that we might learn from? the idea of progress is to look in both directions.

What does the past mean to me? What's past is prologue. It means nothing to me other than
it's past. Certainly, there's nothing I can do to reward those people in the past
who may have contributed to my current pleasure. They're dead. To some extent,
their heirs may be rewarded. But I don't care about them. Afterall, they didn't do
anything for me. To those who may have contributed to "progress" in my own
personal immediate past, I pay money when I utilize their ideas etc. But, again, I can
choose not to buy blah. Of course, this has nothing to do with my paying for
babysitters for other people's rugrats via coercion.

I don't care if other people "learn" from the past, are oblivious to it or what not.

Whether man progresses or regresses is no concern of mine. Chances are nothing will
change too dramatically and so the net effect on me will be marginal. And even if
it does, there's little I can do about it one way or another. So I still should maximize
my current pleasure.

>while i applaud your 'costituency of the moment' (stockhausen's phrase, not mine :), i submit that
>you're attitude is not one of "here and now" so much as "here and MINE". you sound like someone
>who believes he lives his life utterly independant and untouched by the lives of others. one would
>be REAL wrong to think so. other's lives encroach more and more on each of our lives as time goes
>on. don't be fooled by the prevailing mode of advertising. the faux-individualism is a marketing ploy
>to appeal to each persons' inherent greed. pay more attention to what happens in places
>like.....oh, let's say.....albania (an extreme case i'll allow, but there ya are....) to see what happens
>when "taking care of numero uno" takes over.

More "here, now and mine." No, unfortunately, I am not entirely independant and untouched by
the lives of others. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't and couldn't minimize such.

Nobody is saying that you can't pay attention to Albania, but don't expect me to.

>> Considering the billions of dollars that have been spent already and the results
>> you cite, it seems like money down a rathole to me. If you want to spend your
>> money thusly, be my guest. I'd rather not.
>>
>>

>> There is such a thing as a toll road .... I.e., if you use a service, you do pay
>> for it. If you don't, why should you?
>

>are you saying that none of my money goes toward infrastructure of this country? good, that's
>settled. now..... about that troublesome little "stealth bomber" thing i'm still hearing so much
>about....

Again, why should I care about the infrastructure? Things will hold up well enough during
the time I have left. Also, if I chose to utilize infrastructure resources, presumeably
I pay for said useage. E.g., when I drink a glass of water.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

William Davenant wrote:
> >
> >And now all you need is a fresh diaper.
>
> There we go again. What is this fascination that folks of your ilk
> have with human's nether regions?

We just get reminded of it every time we read your posts.
So why do we read your posts, anyway? Hmmmm. Well, it is good for
getting the old bowls moving ev'ry morning (and if you get to be OLD
like us you'll appreciate that!).
You young whippersnapper! When you're a little older, and not "wet
behind the ears," you'll either see the benefit of mutual cooperation,
or you can just shoot yourself!
Just think! If you wait long enough, all those pore welfare
children you're siring out of wedlock will get EVEN MORE of your
hard-on-earned tax dollars! WON'T THAT BE WONDERFULLL???????
> wad
> --
> <;@ :/ 8/
> :) :\ L'epigramme est un jeu de *merdre*.
> :< :| %\ Pere Ubu

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>William Davenant wrote:
>
>> Gregory Taylor <gta...@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I must admit I had to go thru a box of kleenex while reading
>> your sob story. I can't imagine what the world ever did before
>> there was an NEA ....
>
>Out in the boonies, what they did didn't involve a whole lot of
>exposure to the arts.

Huh? Well, ignorance is bliss. Or so I've been told.

Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,
if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
die? Or is art the result of leisure? That is a way for human
beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time? Say
time that could be devoted to hand-wringing over the state of
affairs in Albania?

>> One wonders if they would have funded poor
>> starving artists like Bach
>

>....who was employed by the city of Leipzig...

Yes, that's nice but it doesn't say anything about the NEA.
Would the city of Leipzig have funded, uh, well, anything
the NEA has funded?

And the city of Leipzig only reluctantly employed Herr Bach.

>> or more sucessful entrepreneurs like Handel etc.
>

>....who had clerical, Electoral, aristocratic and Royal patronage
>for almost all of his life.

Okay. I would also have patronized him, but that doesn't say
anything about the NEA. Do you think they would have patronized
him? He was successful afterall? and popular! He could have lost his royal
patronage and still gotten along. Most of his money, I daresay
he made himself.

>> As far as kids in school go, I don't give a damn. That's a matter
>> for their parents. I don't have kids ... and I'm not worried about
>> other people's kids. Frankly, I'm already being imposed on too much
>> by having to pay tax for their education regardless of how good or bad
>> it is.
>

>I see. So you don't benefit at all from having educated people around
>you?

Where? Did I blink and miss something? ;-)

For the most part, no. When I need the benefit, I pay.

>> If parents want better schools and if this _does_ mean more money,
>> then they should pay for it. Otherwise, don't have kids. Or only have as
>> many kids as you can "afford."
>

>And if you don't stick to Davenant's Covenant, shoot the kids or condemn
>them to stupidity and being a burden on others.

Well, shooting is messy. Abortion is probably the better course. And
cheaper, too!

>> I guess I view kids like some view cigarettes.
>

>I can't say I'm impressed.

Yeah ...? And why should I try? What would I get out of it?

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

William Davenant wrote:
> Hmmm. I'm sure if Clinton came out and said the most important
> problem facing the world today was the budget (or lack thereof)
> for the NEA, and if he apologised for the fact that Tchaikovsky
> was hounded into commiting suicide because late 19th century Russian
> society was not sufficiently enlightened, you'd worship the ground
> he walked on ...

Um, no, but while I'm on the ground I would like to look up Hilary's
dress, and we already discussed the Tschaikovsky "suicide" theory and
debunked it. Where have you been? Oh, I forgot, where it's warm,
moist, and the sun don't shine (and that's not a reference to
Helfgott!).

> for the moment anyway ... notwithstanding the fact
> that his pronouncements longevity can be measured in nanoseconds ...
> and their relevance and veracity is always an open question.

Um, wait. This isn't an argument. I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT!
Damn young 'uns!


>
> Ah, the masses! Democracy certainly is the worship of jackals by
> jackasses.

So why don't you live in a country that, for one thing, censors the
Internet (like Singapore, or China, or Uzbekistan)? The leaders of
THOSE contries know right from wrong! DAMN STRAIGHT! CAIN the
ABEL-bodied!


>
> Well, I keep hoping the gods love me, and that I will exit young.

Yeah, boy, go pull a "James Dean" on us! HA HA HA HA! Die young and
leave a good-looking corpse!


> I've
> already seen here how they handle those they hate ....

We don't go mad, we get even...

> wood

"Wood"!

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Alan Swindells <alan...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5prg8l$c...@access5.digex.net>, will...@access5.digex.net
>(William Davenant) wrote:
>> the problem. It's one thing for a rich dude to fund the "art" he
>> likes, it's another to use other people's money to fund the "art" you
>> like.
>>
>
>Curiously enough, for most of recorded history the 'rich dude' who
>funded the arts did so by tapping a readily available source of
>money - the taxes he levied from his subjects. (Think, for example,
>of Frederick the Great, Archbishop Colloredo, James 1 of England et
>al.)

Hmmm. Yes, you're probably right there. I was thinking of people
like Andrew Carnegie (sp?) versus, say, Bill Gates. I.e., the
rather more recent robber barons.

Of course, I abhor the activites of despotic governments who
steal the money of their subjects to fund their personal
pleasures. Hence, my stance on the NEA.

>More recently the industrialist makes his money from the labours
>of his workers. Think of Carnegie, Getty, etc. He (or his heirs)
>then gives a bit of the money to the arts and gets a tax deduction
>as a result. At various times the tax concession has been as high
>as 100% though it is typically rather lower. So who pays in the
>end? That's right, the taxpayer (you and me) again.

Carnegie lived before, well, mostly before the income tax -
excluding that abberation during the American Civil War. He died in
1919, I think. By then he had already given away most of his money.
I don't think he accrued any big tax benefit. I mean, I think he
really did give away most of his money. But, yeah, certainly what
you say is true about Bill Gates. I don't know about Getty, tho.

And, yes, your point is well taken. And I agree. I don't want
to pay so those loopholes should be eliminated.



>So when you get right down to it, does it really matter whether the
>money comes from the NEA (or in this country, the Arts Council) or
>from the philanthropic rich?

Maybe not. But, regardless, I don't want to pay for it.
So maybe contributions to the arts should be regulated
like campaign finance laws in the US? Liberals here should
like that!

Alain DAGHER

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

: Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >William Davenant wrote:
: >

: Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,


: if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
: die? Or is art the result of leisure?

It's somewhere in between. Not quite as important as food and shelter
I grant you, but more than just a way to pass the time.

: That is a way for human


: beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time?

At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
of human life?

: >I see. So you don't benefit at all from having educated people around
: >you?

: Where? Did I blink and miss something?

Stop hanging around with other neo-cons.

D.G. Porter

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

William Davenant wrote:
>
> Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >William Davenant wrote:
>
> RANT BLATHER DROOL

Folks, what we have here is the unfortunate case of an overdose of Ayhn
Rand, The Orange County Register, Pepperdine University, Cato Institute,
Heritage Foundation, Freedom Forum, Liberty Lobby, Liberty University,
The Family Research Council, Oliver North, "The Big Fat Idiot," Ludwig
von Meeses Institute, and an unholy Host of others.
BURN 'EM!!!!

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I don't understand how people can call themselves "conservative" and be
>against government subsidy of the arts with taxpayers' money. What do
>you think the Medici and Sforza did? Or Louis XIV? Or Archbishop
>Colloredo? Or Pope Julius II? Or, for that matter, Pericles with his
>commissioning the buildings of the Acropolis? Or Rameses when he built
>Abu Simbel and a plethora of other monuments to himself? How do you
>think we got the Mona Lisa and the Pietá and the Sistine Chapel
>ceiling? Or the Water Music or the Salzburg Symphonies and Masses? Or
>do you think that these heads of state were using their own money simply
>because they appropriated the public treasury to their own use? Using
>citizens' money to propagate one individual's taste in art is a practice
>as old as mankind, and conservatives should proudly embrace it as an
>ancient and established tradition.

Oh, I see. Well, murder has been around for a long time as well. And
rapine etc. Just because something has a hoary tradition doesn't mean
I'm for it. What you describe above is theft as far as I'm concerned.
Just because some thefts have resulted in pleasant seeming things,
doesn't mean one should approve it.

Actually, I'm probably not a conservative per se, but a libertarian
with anarchist tendencies.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:

>William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>
>: Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,
>: if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
>: die? Or is art the result of leisure?
>
>It's somewhere in between. Not quite as important as food and shelter
>I grant you, but more than just a way to pass the time.
>
>: That is a way for human
>: beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time?
>
>At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
>of human life?

And at which elitist school did you acquire your rather snobby affectations?

Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious
need and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to Alain DAGHER

Alain DAGHER wrote:
>
> Bill Finn (ana...@indy.net) wrote:
> : "Daniel F. Tritter" <"dtri...@bway.net"@bway.net> wrote:
>
> : >Ever hear of one Count Lichnowsky? Beethoven did. Called him a
> horse's
> : >ass, but accepted his subsidy. The Count's purse, mercifully, did
> not
> : >have to pass through Jesse Helms Country. The woods are full of
> : >subsidized composers whose works you celebrate without pausing to
> note
> : >how their creators fed themselves. Even W.A. Mozart took an
> occasional
> : >draft from a government official,
>
> : One might also add the example of Jean Sibelius, who received a
> : lifelong yearly stipend from the Finnish government in order to be
> : able to freely compose. Anything there of value?
>
> Sibelius is a bad example: he composed almost nothing during the last
> 3 decades of his life (this is probably the time when he had that
> stipend - since Finland didn't become independent until 1917 - by
> which time he'd written just about all his works).

*sigh*

1) He was awarded the stipend in 1897.


2) He composed for another 30 years.

3) The stipend wasn't all that much--something equivalent to $5,000
annually today, or so.

4) It was compensation for his having been shafted in a copyright
matter.

5) He wrote a fair amount between 1917 and 1928.

6) Why shouldn't a 63-year-old composer retire?

> It's also unfair to bring up Mozart, Beethoven, or Haydn. They lived
> in different times than ours, when the only people who had money were
> the aristocracy. With the development of the bourgeoisie, many (most)
> artists were able to subsist without government funding.

Actually, most composers *did* get some sort of funding.



> In fact, one could even argue that government funding of *artists* (as
> opposed to funding of institutions) promotes official (and therefore
> unimaginative inoffensive) art. Look at French painting in the 19th
> century. The officially sanctioned and funded artists now languish in
> the storage rooms of provincial musuems, while we know where the
> unfunded ones are.

Indeed--I've always wondered why avant-gardists *want* government
grants...

> I would argue that funding of the arts serves purposes other than
> allowing the actual genesis of works of art (as Mr Fogel was saying, I
> think): making art accessible to all by lowering ticket prices,
> promoting education, etc ...

Bingo.

Roger

Brian Newhouse

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

In article <5q1aet$9...@access5.digex.net>, will...@access5.digex.net
(William Davenant) wrote:

> Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
> >
> >: Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,
> >: if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
> >: die? Or is art the result of leisure?
> >
> >It's somewhere in between. Not quite as important as food and shelter
> >I grant you, but more than just a way to pass the time.
> >
> >: That is a way for human
> >: beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time?
> >
> >At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
> >of human life?
>
> And at which elitist school did you acquire your rather snobby affectations?
>
> Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious
> need and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.

So why do _you_ bother with art, if you don't need it? Why bother with
anything you don't need?

And just because art may have risen out of some religious need doesn't
mean it's tied to that need; otherwise we wouldn't have secular art (the
Byzantines didn't). The same can be said of morality, philosophy,
history, and even science in its more speculative aspects--areas of human
endeavor not generally regarded as unnecessary, only to be outgrown.

And what makes you think we're outgrowing religion? or, for that matter,
losing that leisure of which I agree art is the result? Seems to me that:
--with the various fundamentalist revivals and New Age movements, religion
is for better or worse rather more prominent and prestigious than it was
twenty years ago, and you don't have to admire any of those religions (I
don't) to recognize that;
--leisure has been growing in the industrialized world throughout this
century, at least for those willing to take advantage of it. All the more
opportunity to enjoy and/or make art--or for people to call themselves
artists (alas)

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Brian Newhouse <newh...@mail.crisp.net> wrote:

>> >William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

>> >: Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,
>> >: if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
>> >: die? Or is art the result of leisure?

>> Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious


>> need and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.

>So why do _you_ bother with art, if you don't need it? Why bother with
>anything you don't need?
>
>And just because art may have risen out of some religious need doesn't
>mean it's tied to that need; otherwise we wouldn't have secular art (the
>Byzantines didn't). The same can be said of morality, philosophy,
>history, and even science in its more speculative aspects--areas of human
>endeavor not generally regarded as unnecessary, only to be outgrown.

It seems to be something of a space filler. The material equivalent
of "ah and er" in conversation. And I agree it's no longer tied to
that need. I implied that as well.

>And what makes you think we're outgrowing religion? or, for that matter,
>losing that leisure of which I agree art is the result? Seems to me that:
>--with the various fundamentalist revivals and New Age movements, religion
>is for better or worse rather more prominent and prestigious than it was
>twenty years ago, and you don't have to admire any of those religions (I
>don't) to recognize that;
>--leisure has been growing in the industrialized world throughout this
>century, at least for those willing to take advantage of it. All the more
>opportunity to enjoy and/or make art--or for people to call themselves
>artists (alas)

Well, we have some claims here that are quantifiable. I.e., what has
been the trend in leisure and what has been the trend in arts.
Unfortunately, the later seems somewhat subjective so there might be
difficulties in that measure. I'd be interested in whatever
studies you'd care to do. Frankly, I've heard conflicting information
about just how religious people are. My impression is that over
all people are less religious now than formerly. But, again, if
you'd care to cite some statistics/surveys to the contrary, I'd
be happy to examine them.

Even so, my point was that "art" arose likely from a combination
of religious need and leisure and that just as we appear to be
evolving beyond religious need so we're evolving beyond the
need for art.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I would argue that funding of the arts serves purposes other than
>> allowing the actual genesis of works of art (as Mr Fogel was saying, I
>> think): making art accessible to all by lowering ticket prices,
>> promoting education, etc ...
>
>Bingo.

So why not make football games more accessible by funding teams and
lowering ticket prices?

Alain DAGHER

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

: Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
: >William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: >
: >: Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,
: >: if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
: >: die? Or is art the result of leisure?

: >: That is a way for human


: >: beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time?
: >
: >At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
: >of human life?

: And at which elitist school did you acquire your rather snobby affectations?

Very lame comeback. The use of the words "elitist" and "snobby" are
pretty knee-jerk and predictable. Nothing I said justifies them; it's
not like I called you an ignorant philistine or anything.

: Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious
: need

Your contradicting yourself. Is it a need or not?

: and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.

I would have thought religion was making a bit of a comeback, even in
the affluent west, where it was supposed to be obsolete. Take Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair for example. (Please.) Boy Tony even has his
own personal priest for Chr...'s sake!

No: the real phenomenon that (1) arose out of too much leisure time
and (2) is replacing organized religion is health-obsession.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

In article <5q2tf3$q...@access5.digex.net>,

William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> I would argue that funding of the arts serves purposes other than
>>> allowing the actual genesis of works of art (as Mr Fogel was saying, I
>>> think): making art accessible to all by lowering ticket prices,
>>> promoting education, etc ...
>>
>>Bingo.
>
>So why not make football games more accessible by funding teams and
>lowering ticket prices?

They do, or don't you follow the stadium referenda which appear on the
ballots every election?

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

In article <5q19o5$8...@access5.digex.net>,

I beg to differ. You are hardly a libertarian in deed. While you
pontificate on the internet built by society for mass use, participate
in our mass culture and rely on society's labor to feed and clothe you,
drink freely of the processed water society provides, use liberally the
electricity society provides, you are hardly a libertarian. If you vote,
you are further contradicting the essence of Libertarianism.

Your social attitudes, comments of individual superiority and disdain for
the mass of humanity further makes you the antithesis of an anarchist.

You are quite free to believe what you wish. Just don't cloud it with
nisnomers and if you feel that mass culture and its use of your money is
so evil, at least stop wasting so much energy and move somewhere so you
can put your beliefs into practice. I know that sounds a lot like the
old "If you don't like it here, move back to Russia where you came from",
but this is different. I find your arguments to be paper, even bean curd
(credit to Mao) tigers. You work a job which only exists because we
value it and reward you for it. Without society, you don't even have
that. Your education was paid for largely through mass societal
endowments, many through government agencies. I don't hear you screaming
for cuts in the services you want at the rest of our expense. Which
brings us back to the NEA. If your job were paid by them, I'll bet you'd
be loudly proclaiming their necessity regardless of your ideology.

Opps, your little pixels all fell apart.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>: >At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
>: >of human life?
>
>: And at which elitist school did you acquire your rather snobby affectations?
>
>Very lame comeback. The use of the words "elitist" and "snobby" are
>pretty knee-jerk and predictable. Nothing I said justifies them; it's
>not like I called you an ignorant philistine or anything.

What can I say? Etiam Homerus dormitat?

>: Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious
>: need
>
>Your contradicting yourself. Is it a need or not?

Hmmm. No, perhaps I'm just being a tad sloppy. Anyway, I think it's
clear from the context that what I'm saying that at some time in
the past man felt a need to create gods (and art followed.) That
time is now past. He's evolved beyond that stage. Neither is needed.

>: and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.
>
>I would have thought religion was making a bit of a comeback, even in
>the affluent west, where it was supposed to be obsolete. Take Bill
>Clinton and Tony Blair for example. (Please.) Boy Tony even has his
>own personal priest for Chr...'s sake!

I need more convincing than that.

>No: the real phenomenon that (1) arose out of too much leisure time
>and (2) is replacing organized religion is health-obsession.

I suppose if the supernatural is superfluous, then the natural is
essential. I.e., if death is the end all, then we want to push it
off as far as possible. So that would be, perhaps, some indirect
evidence of the superfluity of religion. My point.

Chris Nappi

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

William Davenant wrote:
>
> Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
> >

> >: That is a way for human
> >: beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time?
> >

> >At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
> >of human life?
>
> And at which elitist school did you acquire your rather snobby affectations?
>

> Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious

> need and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.

one question here.....

if this is your opinion of art and artistic activity, what, oh what, are you doing in this newsgroups?
what do you care what happens in classical music. is it just a "know thy enemy" impulse? just out to
pick a fight? have a good laugh at those "bleading heart knuckleheads"?

for the record, i consider art......no, not art, "creation" ......the most basic human need. and one that
(apparently) fallen so far out of focus as to seem to some a senseless waste of time because it
doesn't in any way pay for itself. further i consider the denial of this act is what has brought society
to it's present state of conflictedness. the fact that no one values the act of creationãdoesn't have
to be a "masterpiece".....doesn't even have to be any good! just the fact that one made it, if only to
throw it awayã is indicative of a larger problem, i believe.

i think the concept of "if i want it, i pay for it" extends, usually, down to "if i can pay for it, why do i
have to do it myself?" which is about as anti-creation an attitude as one can get. art is just a nice
name for making something. the point is not to be hunting for a masterpiece that you can then sit
back and show everyone as the money rolls in. if that were the case then beethoven could have
stopped with the 3rd (note to participants: insert major early-period work and creator of your choice
here).

it has never, EVER been the nature of art to pay for itself, inherently. i believe that if one sits down
to make something new (perhaps especially, but not exclusively, of an "artistic" nature) then one
needs to at least allow for the possibility that the results may indeed be crap. at which point, i'll
decide why i think it's crap and start something else with the knowledge i gained from the first piece
of crap. the "masterpiece" concept is a function of commerce, not art. it's hard to distinguish the
two sometimes (most times?). but if we as a society were more in the habit of "making things" rather
than "buying things" (a created life as opposed to an acquired one) then the difference would be a
bit easier to spot.

ok ok ok.....i'll shut up
chris nappi

p.s. note to William

good luck in november!

_

Dan Cloutier

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> spewed profusely:

But I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant and understanding of
alternative viewpoints.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If man wore black feathers and flew, few would be clever enough to be crows"
Henry Ward Beecher

David Cleary

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

: Anyway, I think it's


: clear from the context that what I'm saying that at some time in
: the past man felt a need to create gods (and art followed.)

I'm not clear on what's being implied here. Are you saying that people
create art works as a substitute for religion (which would suggest the
masterpiece concept possibly) or something similar? If so, would you
characterize the artist as "se'er" or "prophet wannabe?"

: That


: time is now past. He's evolved beyond that stage. Neither is needed.

Assuming this is indeed the case, why do you feel that is more than just
your own opinion?

Clarification is welcome.

Dave

Matthew H. Fields

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

In article <33C43F94...@ix.netcom.com>,

Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Alain DAGHER wrote:
>> the storage rooms of provincial musuems, while we know where the
>> unfunded ones are.

>Indeed--I've always wondered why avant-gardists *want* government
>grants...


Well, starvation isn't all it's cracked up to be as a an artistic
stimulus.....


--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS.COM Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
"Computer: disobey me."

Bob Caulk

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

>I don't understand how people can call themselves "conservative" and be
>against government subsidy of the arts with taxpayers' money.

>What do you think ... Rameses [did] when he built
>Abu Simbel and a plethora of other monuments to himself?...

He used slave labor.

>Or do you think that these heads of state were using their own money simply
>because they appropriated the public treasury to their own use? Using
>citizens' money to propagate one individual's taste in art is a practice
>as old as mankind, and conservatives should proudly embrace it as an
>ancient and established tradition.

>Regards
>Con

Either you don't understand the modern conservative movement in America or
you put too much emphasis on the literal meaing of political labels. I would
would never confuse the modern liberal political position with that of the
17th and and early 18th century liberal who was more like the modern
libertarian than what passes for a liberal today. Conservatives like me
are equally concerned with ethics and morality as well as tradition. It
is immoral to extort from anyone through threat of force, taxation, or any
form of coercion to satisfy one's own personal desires and tastes. I would
hope that even a liberal could agree with this but from what I've read so far
with some (and possibly you) this seems unlikely. I like some of what the
NEA does on a personal level in that I enjoy classical music. But at its
heart the NEA is a government agency sponsoring a form of censorship and
sometimes questionble art projects that benefit only the few and outrage
others. This is not a proper function of government. By doling out grants
on a selective basis the NEA functions as a censor on art: only politically
correct artists get approval and funding. By politically correct I mean
those that pass the NEA criteria for funding which is murky at best and
offensive at worst. Probably 'State Approved' artists would be a better
term. I would think that this would offend the left since liberals are
supposedly aghast at any form of censorship and state sanctioning seals of
approval. But it is my experience that many on the left are against
censorship only when it affects the left or vulgar or obscene material
but cheerfully look the other way when it is employed against the right or any
form of religious expression.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:

>>So why not make football games more accessible by funding teams and
>>lowering ticket prices?
>
>They do, or don't you follow the stadium referenda which appear on the
>ballots every election?

Ah! Well, yes, that is sort of a kickback isn't it? Defer taxes or
actually contribute monies to the team etc. I'm not too crazy about
such things ... and I am dubious about the arguments that the benefits
(jobs, taxes and revenue) generated by the stadium offset the
"seed" monies ... that is, I don't "actually" wind up paying more
taxes but less. At least these are local issues and are voted
on locally as opposed to something like the NEA. No one asked me if
such and such performance art should be funded. I didn't have the
opportunity to vote against it. Which is what I've done on stadium
issues. Altho, I do find the returns likely more immediate than, say,
on education referenda. And, no, I don't think they claim lower
ticket prices per se. It's usually sold as a net revenue maker
for the local governmental entity.

Alain DAGHER

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

: Actually, I'm probably not a conservative per se, but a libertarian
: with anarchist tendencies.

The correct term is "sociopathic".

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>William Davenant wrote:
>>

>> Clearly, people don't need art. It probably arose out of some religious
>> need and indications are we're outgrowing it just like religion.
>
>one question here.....
>
>if this is your opinion of art and artistic activity, what, oh what, are you doing in this newsgroups?
>what do you care what happens in classical music. is it just a "know thy enemy" impulse? just out to
>pick a fight? have a good laugh at those "bleading heart knuckleheads"?

;-) "Bleeding heart knuckleheads?" I like that! There's probably some truth
to all those things, But there are other reasons as well.

Even tho I've deleted it (too long) the rest of what you said was interesting to me.

Yes, I do think art (or creation) is superfluous in today's world, that there
is no real creation occuring today.

People go to their employment (whether it be a ditch digger, research
scientist or program director) and basically perform repetitive actions,
go home and plop their dead asses in the chair in front of the TV
or the stereo for a nice evening's worth of passivity. And wretched
passivity at that. There's certainly nothing creative occurring in
tv-land. And the cycle repeats itself. Even what bills itself as
art doesn't strike me as creative ... bizarre? yes, creative? no!

Indeed, much of what is supposed to be art today seems analogous
to the so called art of the end of the Roman empire. You know,
the exaggerated abstractions of Hellenic art in its prime,
the commentaries on commentaries of commentaries. An age that
was creatively bankrupt and that readily slipt into darkness.
That's where I see us today. And how did people live then?
For the moment. Because you could never tell what the future
would bring. The old gods were dead, you see. I don't mean
to be too Gibbonesque, but there does seem to be something to
that.

And in brilliant Orwellian strokes, places that claim to be
bastians of creativity and new thought etc. actually stifle
same. I'm thinking of the educational system, of course.
Conform, conform. Be diverse, yes, but within the parameters
we, your betters, set. A true illiberal education if ever
there was one.

But the government does provide you with bread and
circuses. The dole, the NEA. And you're happy and
so reproduce like proles.

The NEA is passive art. You're letting the government determine
what is art and some of you are apparently quite happy
with that sort of spectacle.

I, myself, think you'd be much better off if you engaged
in a little more personal, individual creativity ...
and put your money where your mouth was.

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to Bob Caulk


Could you show some evidence that the NEA discriminates against
art that involves religious expression?

Roger Lustig

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:

>>Actually, I'm probably not a conservative per se, but a libertarian
>>with anarchist tendencies.
>

>I beg to differ. You are hardly a libertarian in deed. While you
>pontificate on the internet built by society for mass use, participate
>in our mass culture and rely on society's labor to feed and clothe you,
>drink freely of the processed water society provides, use liberally the
>electricity society provides, you are hardly a libertarian. If you vote,
>you are further contradicting the essence of Libertarianism.

The original impetus behind the internet had more to do with the
evil-doers at the Pentagon (that's B1 bomber-land for you folks
readin' at educational institutions) than some altruistic societal mass
use nonsense. I'm sure tho that in a few years textbooks will
be printing such statements like yours and representing them
as the fact of the matter. It didn't really take off till it was
privatized ... you know, the thing I'd like to do with the NEA.
As for the other things you mention. I've yet to receive any
of them for free ... so I'm not going to feel to beholdin'.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

Bob Caulk <bob....@csun.edu> wrote:
>
>the NEA is a government agency sponsoring a form of censorship and
>sometimes questionble art projects that benefit only the few and outrage
>others. This is not a proper function of government. By doling out grants
>on a selective basis the NEA functions as a censor on art: only politically
>correct artists get approval and funding. By politically correct I mean
>those that pass the NEA criteria for funding which is murky at best and
>offensive at worst. Probably 'State Approved' artists would be a better
>term. I would think that this would offend the left since liberals are
>supposedly aghast at any form of censorship and state sanctioning seals of
>approval. But it is my experience that many on the left are against
>censorship only when it affects the left or vulgar or obscene material
>but cheerfully look the other way when it is employed against the right or any
>form of religious expression.

Indeed. I would posit that the NEA is a late 20th century American
manifestation of similar art funding governmental agencies that existed
in, say, 1930s Germany ... and what is now called the Russian Republic.

And what's the prevailing opinion of the art they sponsored?

Regardless, is government any good at art? It typically doesn't even
govern very well.

Chris Nappi

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Bob Caulk wrote:

> NEA does on a personal level in that I enjoy classical music. But at its

> heart the NEA is a government agency sponsoring a form of censorship and


> sometimes questionble art projects that benefit only the few and outrage
> others.

please cite the works to which you are referring. and please, for originalities sake, try to do so
without using the name "Serrano."

chris nappi
--

Chris Nappi

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

having been the one you were answering in this round i respectfully say...

bullshit!

1) you didn't in any way answer the question.

2) if anything i wrote following that (which was, by the way, about 1/2 as long as your reply) actually
made any sense to you, then your opinion of art and of society and of the life WE ALL live within it
would be different. i'm talking here about the NEA as a facilitator of art outside of the major centers
where it predominantly occurs. i'm talking about that post that described the string trio going out to
the schools out in TX. i'm talking about the schools programs i myself have participated in. i've
worked with kids. and done so on NEA money. i've seen how open they were to it. it wasn't above
their heads. it wasn't something that only the most "mature" of them got. it's just that they've all
been taught by the "commerce-heads" that art is this elevated thing that you need special training
in and have to be incredibly deferrential to in hushed tones. it's not the case. anything but, i tend to
think.

you are, obviously, a person who already knows alot of this. i believe this is because you had
access to these things and were therefore able to make up your mind about them. that's all we're
talking about here, exposure. letting the kid say "yay" or "nay" on his own.

3) the NEA is not "passive art". the NEA is not any sort of art. it is a panel of people who are IN the
scene (whatever it may be, educational, artistic, etc... there always seems to be rather a
cross-section) that inform and advise the agency about the work of the applicants.

4) you are, parenthetically, proving my first points to you in this debate. there you are bitching
about mr. and mrs. joe six-pack in front of their tv set and yet, unless i missed something, you're
offering them no alternatives to just sitting there and becoming statistics on someones advertising
revenues. if you're not going to help them, THEN SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THEM.

and as far as putting my money where my mouth is.....

i'm an artist. i do ABSOLUTELY nothing but enrich peoples lives. if one doesn't like what i do, one
is free to move on to the next thing. but no one ever lost anything by looking at something they
weren't interested in. no trees died. no national economies ever went belly-up. the point is to keep
experiencing things. and i'm out there giving something of myself in order to provide all of us
(obviously, myself included) with interesting experiences to think about.

so you can keep that shit, thank you very much.......

chris nappi

p.s. as far as "lowering ticket prices on football games".......
the point he was making was about making things accessible to those who might not easily get at it.
this does decidedly not apply to football. i don't even HAVE a damn t.v. and i can't get away from it.

dtri...@bway.net

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

William Davenant wrote:

>
> Bob Caulk <bob....@csun.edu> wrote:
>
> Regardless, is government any good at art? It typically doesn't even
> govern very well.
>
> wd


And from the evidence of wd's continuous screed, they don't educate well
either.


dft

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:

>William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>
>: Actually, I'm probably not a conservative per se, but a libertarian
>: with anarchist tendencies.
>
>The correct term is "sociopathic".

Ha ha. There's some truth to that. What's really amazing to me
is that it seems entirely rational to be so. And being rational ....
Just be glad that I haven't been able to shake these silly
religious notions about the sanctity of life. Be very glad!

Alain DAGHER

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

: Yes, I do think art (or creation) is superfluous in today's world, that there


: is no real creation occuring today.

Please - not another moan about the "fin-de-siecle" malaise. It's
becoming a bit of a cliche.

: People go to their employment (whether it be a ditch digger, research

: scientist or program director) and basically perform repetitive actions,
: go home and plop their dead asses in the chair in front of the TV
: or the stereo for a nice evening's worth of passivity. And wretched
: passivity at that. There's certainly nothing creative occurring in
: tv-land. And the cycle repeats itself. Even what bills itself as
: art doesn't strike me as creative

William; Cheer up! It really isn't that bad. Try a hobby, Prozac,
something. You neo-cons were a lot more fun when you were foaming at
the mouth. You just sound depressed to me.

[ remainder deleted because it's even more of a downer ]

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Chris Nappi <cna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>William Davenant wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I do think art (or creation) is superfluous in today's world, that there
>> is no real creation occuring today.
>>
>> But the government does provide you with bread and
>> circuses. The dole, the NEA. And you're happy and
>> so reproduce like proles.
>>
>> The NEA is passive art. You're letting the government determine
>> what is art and some of you are apparently quite happy
>> with that sort of spectacle.
>>
>> I, myself, think you'd be much better off if you engaged
>> in a little more personal, individual creativity ...
>> and put your money where your mouth was.

>you are, obviously, a person who already knows alot of this. i believe this is because you had

>access to these things and were therefore able to make up your mind about them. that's all we're
>talking about here, exposure. letting the kid say "yay" or "nay" on his own.

I agree that the "kid" should be able to say yes/no. And they can do that
by spending or not spending their own (parents) money. But not mine.

>3) the NEA is not "passive art". the NEA is not any sort of art. it is a panel of people who are IN the
>scene (whatever it may be, educational, artistic, etc... there always seems to be rather a
>cross-section) that inform and advise the agency about the work of the applicants.

It seems pretty passive to me to let other people decide for you what art is.
The best way for people to get the art they want is to make them pay for it
themselves. That's active participation ... voting with the pocketbook so
to speak. What the NEA is is basically welfare for "artists" but with a
country club flavor.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In article <5q4889$i...@access5.digex.net>,

William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>
>>>Actually, I'm probably not a conservative per se, but a libertarian
>>>with anarchist tendencies.
>>
>>I beg to differ. You are hardly a libertarian in deed. While you
>>pontificate on the internet built by society for mass use, participate
>>in our mass culture and rely on society's labor to feed and clothe you,
>>drink freely of the processed water society provides, use liberally the
>>electricity society provides, you are hardly a libertarian. If you vote,
>>you are further contradicting the essence of Libertarianism.
>
>The original impetus behind the internet had more to do with the
>evil-doers at the Pentagon (that's B1 bomber-land for you folks
>readin' at educational institutions) than some altruistic societal mass
>use nonsense.

Your comment is irrelevant. Regardless of the impetus, the medium is
available because of pooled revenue from the citizenry which you rely on
to broadcast your comments. This is antithetical to libertarianism.

I'm sure tho that in a few years textbooks will
>be printing such statements like yours and representing them
>as the fact of the matter. It didn't really take off till it was
>privatized ... you know, the thing I'd like to do with the NEA.
>As for the other things you mention. I've yet to receive any
>of them for free ... so I'm not going to feel to beholdin'.

Whether or not you paid a nickle or not, you hardly paid the full cost
and setup cost for those items and you should be honest enough to admit
that.

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

dtri...@bway.net <dtri...@bway.net> wrote:

>William Davenant wrote:
>>
>> Regardless, is government any good at art? It typically doesn't even
>> govern very well.
>
>And from the evidence of wd's continuous screed, they don't educate well
>either.

We can blame the gummit fur lot's of things, it's true! But not that.
Thank God!

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:

>William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>
>: Yes, I do think art (or creation) is superfluous in today's world, that there
>: is no real creation occuring today.
>
>Please - not another moan about the "fin-de-siecle" malaise. It's
>becoming a bit of a cliche.

Oh gosh, I hadn't even thought about that! It's a coincidence only,
I assure you. I hope it's not dwelling too much on your mind? Indeed,
I anticipate the new century as bringing much mirth.

You see, to a feeling man life's a tragedy, but to a thinking man it's
a comedy.

>: People go to their employment (whether it be a ditch digger, research
>: scientist or program director) and basically perform repetitive actions,
>: go home and plop their dead asses in the chair in front of the TV
>: or the stereo for a nice evening's worth of passivity. And wretched
>: passivity at that. There's certainly nothing creative occurring in
>: tv-land. And the cycle repeats itself. Even what bills itself as
>: art doesn't strike me as creative
>
>William; Cheer up! It really isn't that bad. Try a hobby, Prozac,
>something. You neo-cons were a lot more fun when you were foaming at
>the mouth. You just sound depressed to me.
>
>[ remainder deleted because it's even more of a downer ]

Hee hee. I'm certainly not depressed by it. I'm a carpe diem sorta
guy, after all. If anyone needs medication, it's the folks
who are having cows because someone's threatening one of
their sacred ones. You'd think they were giving birth to
broken china.

Clovis Lark

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In article <5q5v31$f...@access5.digex.net>,

William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>>The original impetus behind the internet had more to do with the
>>>evil-doers at the Pentagon (that's B1 bomber-land for you folks
>>>readin' at educational institutions) than some altruistic societal mass
>>>use nonsense.
>>
>>Your comment is irrelevant. Regardless of the impetus, the medium is
>>available because of pooled revenue from the citizenry which you rely on
>>to broadcast your comments. This is antithetical to libertarianism.
>
>I'm sorry ... I have this weakness for facts. "Pooled revenue?"
>Is that some bizarre euphemism for "taxes?"

You bet. And that's how you get all the infrastructure which you take
for granted and use daily.

>
>>I'm sure tho that in a few years textbooks will
>>>be printing such statements like yours and representing them
>>>as the fact of the matter. It didn't really take off till it was
>>>privatized ... you know, the thing I'd like to do with the NEA.
>>>As for the other things you mention. I've yet to receive any
>>>of them for free ... so I'm not going to feel to beholdin'.
>>
>>Whether or not you paid a nickle or not, you hardly paid the full cost
>>and setup cost for those items and you should be honest enough to admit
>>that.
>

>I see, so it's all done through some sort of magic? Money grows on
>trees? Creation by mere thought? Nobody really pays for anything ...

I cannot for the life of me fathom your thought process. You think that
you paid the full cost of providing water to your home? that you
personally built the electric system? That tuition at school pays the
entire cost of your education?

>just some token. Okay, well, I want my tokens to be seashells that
>I can collect along the seashore. Yeah, that's it. I'm sure
>the IRS will honor that. I've got some real pretty ones they
>can use to fund the NEA with.

You've just given clear indication as to how absolutely clueless you
are. What I cannot understand is why you aren't hightailing it out to
some backwoods area where you can try to live in the manner you seem to
want. I'm sure that after a little confrontation with the realities of
sustaining your being you'd be crawling back to beg for all the blessings
which you've cursed here over the last few days.

Matthew H. Fields

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In article <5q14cq$j...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>,

Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>: Roger L. Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: >William Davenant wrote:

>: Anyway, is art really a necessary component of human life? I mean,
>: if we don't have art, do we just go to a corner and curl up and
>: die? Or is art the result of leisure?

>It's somewhere in between. Not quite as important as food and shelter
>I grant you, but more than just a way to pass the time.

>: That is a way for human
>: beings to fill up what could otherwise be productive time?

>At which business school did you go to learn this shabby zero-sum view
>of human life?

It does sort of beg the question of "what is wealth", doesn't it.

>: >I see. So you don't benefit at all from having educated people around
>: >you?

>: Where? Did I blink and miss something?

>Stop hanging around with other neo-cons.

Oooohch! :-)

>--
>Regards,
> "De la musique avant toute chose"
>Alain Dagher, M.D.
>Montreal Neurological Institute -Paul Verlaine

I find it especially interesting that a neurologist is writing this.
I've long espoused the idea that music, like play, sleep, and dreaming,
serves a necessary function for active intelligences---just what that
function is is subject to debate.

Bill Finn

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

I've been reading all the many many interesting pro and con remarks
concerning the NEA in this group now for several days. I would also
like to add some thoughts.

The notion did enter my head that many of the most ardent anti-NEA
posters may indeed have easily spent more money on their internet time
here than they might well have on the NEA in several years. What is
it, a nickel per taxpayer per year? Maybe it was a dollar. I'm fishing

here folks, somebody please help me out. I know it was less than I
loose in the coffee machine at the office in the same amount of time.

All of us who pay taxes end up supporting many programs that we as
individuals may not desire. We are after all a Republic and not an
anarchy. I'm just surprised to note that the NEA has become the
whipping-boy on THIS particular newsgroup.

And of course they are going to make choices that you or I may not
always agree with. We are after all very independent creatures. But
to throw away the entire package because of an ideological difference
seems to me to be true folly. Are we as a nation so polarized that we
can't even tolerate another point of view? Does anyone really think
that a nation with politically correct and safe points of view will be
of much substance? Is it merely a matter of having your own way no
matter what?

Perhaps considering the miniscule amount that we currently give to the
NEA, this is really no big deal. Even the National Science Foundation
has found ways to exist without public money. At least however, they
weren't abolished.
________

Bill Finn


Alain DAGHER

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:

: Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
: >William Davenant (will...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: >
: >: Actually, I'm probably not a conservative per se, but a libertarian
: >: with anarchist tendencies.
: >
: >The correct term is "sociopathic".

: Ha ha. There's some truth to that. What's really amazing to me
: is that it seems entirely rational to be so. And being rational ....
: Just be glad that I haven't been able to shake these silly
: religious notions about the sanctity of life. Be very glad!

I'm forwarding this to the FBI.

(That should get him.)

---

But thanks for once again proving that the politics of resentment are
now the purview of the right. Go back and read Nietzsche and Conrad
again. (Both of whom pointed out that the anarchist is motivated by an
instinct for revenge.) (e.g. "Twilight of the Idols" and "The Secret
Agent")

William Davenant

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

Clovis Lark <cl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>William Davenant <will...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>The original impetus behind the internet had more to do with the
>>evil-doers at the Pentagon (that's B1 bomber-land for you folks
>>readin' at educational institutions) than some altruistic societal mass
>>use nonsense.
>
>Your comment is irrelevant. Regardless of the impetus, the medium is
>available because of pooled revenue from the citizenry which you rely on
>to broadcast your comments. This is antithetical to libertarianism.

I'm sorry ... I have this weakness for facts. "Pooled revenue?"
Is that some bizarre euphemism for "taxes?"

>I'm sure tho that in a few years textbooks will


>>be printing such statements like yours and representing them
>>as the fact of the matter. It didn't really take off till it was
>>privatized ... you know, the thing I'd like to do with the NEA.
>>As for the other things you mention. I've yet to receive any
>>of them for free ... so I'm not going to feel to beholdin'.
>
>Whether or not you paid a nickle or not, you hardly paid the full cost
>and setup cost for those items and you should be honest enough to admit
>that.

I see, so it's all done through some sort of magic? Money grows on
trees? Creation by mere thought? Nobody really pays for anything ...

just some token. Okay, well, I want my tokens to be seashells that
I can collect along the seashore. Yeah, that's it. I'm sure
the IRS will honor that. I've got some real pretty ones they
can use to fund the NEA with.

wd

Roger L. Lustig

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to t...@lanl.gov

Tony T. Warnock wrote:
>
> The great problem with then NEA is that using government money for
> support of the arts (or sciences or stadia or whatever) is that it
> leads to political oversight of same.

Is this true? Note that only through the tender mercies of Jesse
Helms and his ilk has the NEA been politicized.

> There will be bureaucracies set up to
> see that the money-mongers do not favor only their friends (or vice
> versa.) As there is only a finite amount of money, there will be
> proposals, reviews, guidelines, OHSA, EPA, EEOC, OPEC, etc. Grants
> will
> be given to those who play the political game the best. Those who are
> not in favor with the political establishment will be left out. The
> threat of cutting off funding from those who are used to it will be
> painful.

Why the future tense? The NEA has been around for 30 years. Have
grants indeed been given out to the politically most adept?

Also, note that your argument boils down to this: because there
are mechanisms put in place to avoid favoritism, there will be
favoritism.

Finally, look up 'monger'.

> What's in or out will depend on chaotic political winds.

Only if chaotic politicians are allowed to fuck around with it.

> This is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of government
> funding
> of arts (etc.) but at least people should admit that government
> funding
> means government control. This control may even be unintentional but
> it is there.

Show me. Where is it? How does the government control, say, the
Chicago Symphony?

Also, check out your own email address? Was your posting government-
controlled?

Roger

Mark Heiser

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:34:54 GMT, ana...@indy.net (Bill Finn) wrote:


:The notion did enter my head that many of the most ardent anti-NEA


:posters may indeed have easily spent more money on their internet time
:here than they might well have on the NEA in several years. What is
:it, a nickel per taxpayer per year? Maybe it was a dollar. I'm fishing

It's about 35 cents per year. But NEA abolitionists would also point
out that there is about 400 million worth of lost tax revenue because
of the deductable on contributions to non-profit arts organizations.
That figure is an estimate.
Mark Heiser
Berkeley, California

Brian Newhouse

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

So is someone proposing to abolish this indirect subsidy to the arts as
well, to make up that lost tax revenue? That's (very disturbing) news to
me--but not surprising somehow. If the American Enterprise Institute and
the Heritage Foundation can flourish like the green bay tree without
subsidy or tax exemption of any kind, so I suppose should the Metropolitan
Opera and the Brooklyn Academy of Music. <sigh>

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net

Mark Starr

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to William Davenant

> William Davenant wrote:

> <'D / C /
> ()-^ --+-\\ L'epigramme est un jeu d'escrime.
> / > | \ Antoine Louis Le Brun

Aussi, une epigramme est toujours tres courte.
Mark Starr

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages