GATHERING OF ARTISTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA
Joe Hill
On Feb. 28 at 9 pm artists, musicians, poets and others against the
"Contract With America" will assemble for an evening of readings, rants
and riffs at THE FEZ located at 380 Lafayette Street in Manhattan, New
York City.
Admission is $5 with proceeds to benefit the National Literary Network, an
organization founded in 1990 in support of the National Endowment for the
Arts.
Artists scheduled to perform include:
Homer Erotic, Tuli Kupferberg, Toshi Reagon, Emily XYZ & Myers Bartlette,
Matthew Courtney, John S. Hall, Todd Colby, Edwin Torres, Miguel Algarín,
Eric Drooker, Coby Batty, Stephan Said, and many others.
Mistress of Ceremonies: Reno
WHAT CAN WE DO?
This event is designed as a visual and vocal protest against the
conservative agenda proposed in the Republican document "Contract with
America". The goal of the evening is to celebrate artistic freedom and
diversity as well as build community and unity in the face of an intended
dismantling of civil rights and social services. As artists and members of
arts organizations, we want to draw attention to the critical issues of
censorship and disappearing funding. Members of the National Literary
Network, will be on hand to distribute action materials including
postcards to Congresspeople and Senators and names of contacts in
government to correspond with in support of the NEA and NEH.
If you cannot attend this event, you can write your congresspersons and
senators, and let them know that the "Contract with.." is actually a
"Contract on America".
Additional information can be obtained from the American Arts Alliance
(202) 737-1727
and from the Congressional Switchboard (202) 224-3121.
--
Tom Honles
>A GATHERING OF ARTISTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA
>
>On Feb. 28 at 9 pm artists, musicians, poets and others against the
>"Contract With America" will assemble for an evening of readings, rants
>and riffs at THE FEZ located at 380 Lafayette Street in Manhattan, New
>York City.
I couldn't resist, so here is my $.02
As a fellow artist I am very sympathetic to the arts. But I don't want
and don't agree with funding art with public money. I don't care how many
governments have in the past, etc. Art is a personal expression/interpretaion
which hopefully is relevant and connects with public perception/reality.
Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the few should
fund it, not the general public.
Making art is a freedom, for sure, and I don't deny your right
to make it. But not on my dime and not on my time unless it means something
to me: then I willingly participate in funding it. But it should'nt be
forced on the taxpayer.
******************************************************************
Tom Honles
EMail: t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us OR t...@f945.n102.z1.fidonet.org
******************************************************************
Tom Neff
Wow, I dreamed I saw you last night! As live as you could be...
--
Tom Neff :: tn...@panix.com :: <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>
Joann Murdock
>As a fellow artist I am very sympathetic to the arts. But I don't want
>and don't agree with funding art with public money.
>Making art is a freedom, for sure, and I don't deny your right
>to make it. But not on my dime and not on my time unless it means something
>to me: then I willingly participate in funding it. But it should'nt be
>forced on the taxpayer.
All through the ages, artists have RELIED upon PATRONS to survive.
CONTRACT ON AMERICA is part of the attempt by the right wing to SILENCE the
voice of the poor, the dissenter, the disenfranchised and anyone outside THEIR
mainstream.
For as little as it costs, the arts provide untold benefits which you --
as artist and as listener -- are reaping. (And NO arts are funded ENTIRELY by
public monies, they just need some support).
It extends beyond just funding for the arts, to funding for public
broadcasting and funding for education. As the gap continues to grow between
the rich and the poor, I watch in horror as the "haves" tear out the
foundations of democracy from this society.
Artists always have been "outside the mainstream" of public opinion and
experience, but they have often served as pioneers and the vital "conscience"
of their society. We MUST fight to preserve this voice,
====>>>> Whether we agree with what they say, or not. <<<<=====
Re Public radio -- once public radio is un-funded, HOW will you, as an artist,
be able to reach an audience. It's already happening. Newt has already held
$500 a plate fundraisers to fund a new cable tv station he wants to start.
Once public radio is unfunded, the conservatives -- who DO have money -- will
buy stations and take over those airwaves.
Re Education -- This is the same issue. The "haves" say "Why should I pay for
local schools, when my kids are in private school?" OR "Too much of our
education tax dollars are going out of our (exclusive) community. Why should
we pay for schools in Chicago?" The reason is that democracy cannot function
without an educated population. Free speech, education, artistic expression
-- we must fight for our rights to SPEAK and to be HEARD.
========================================================================
Joann Murdock
Artists of Note/Depot Recordings
P.O. Box 11
Kaneville, IL 60144-0011, USA
(708) 557-2742
jmur...@mcs.com
========================================================================
John Peekstok
: >As a fellow artist I am very sympathetic to the arts. But I don't want
: >and don't agree with funding art with public money.
: >Making art is a freedom, for sure, and I don't deny your right
: >to make it. But not on my dime and not on my time unless it means something
: >to me: then I willingly participate in funding it. But it should'nt be
: >forced on the taxpayer.
As a fellow American, I am very sympatetic to national defense. But I
don't want and don't agree with funding war with public money. So why
does the government pay to help American arms dealers sell weapons to
other countries? (right, we are not warmongers).
As a fellow living person, I am sympathetic to the rights of smokers. But
I don't want and don't agree with funding the growing of tobacco with
public money. So why do we subsidize the tobacco industry? (right, we are
fighting a war on drugs).
The arts is WAY down on my list of things to not spend money on.
Haven't you heard that the military spends more money every year on
milatary bands than the entire NEA budget? Why aren't you objecting to
that "arts funding".
Doesn't the other obscenities that we spend money on
and the relatively small amount we spend on the arts make you suspicious
of the motives of the people who are trying to cut this funding?
Do you know that every new bomber that gets built costs about three times
the entire budget for the NEA and public broadcasting combined? Do you
really sleep better at night knowing that there is one more bomber
guarding you as there was last year? I'd vote for one less airplane, the
same funding for the arts, and 600 million in savings.
--
_______________________________________
John Peekstok john...@cyberspace.com (My own opinions, of course)
Telynor tel...@aol.com
Hargrove, Matthew G.
Eric--
WELL SAID!!!
Matt Hargrove
Sacramento, CA
On 28 Feb 1995, Eric Adair wrote:
> Joann Murdock (jmur...@mcs.com) wrote:
> : we pay for schools in Chicago?" The reason is that democracy cannot function
> : without an educated population. Free speech, education, artistic expression
> : -- we must fight for our rights to SPEAK and to be HEARD.
>
> Ah, so now "freedom of the press" means that you have the right to take
> my money, and use it to pay for a press from which to express your
> opinions? Interesting interpretation. Freedom of religion, I suppose,
> means that I have to pay for a preacher and a church, and maybe a cab
> ride there for you?
>
> Bull. Art can survive just fine without government cash. Any art that
> can't exist without the government stealing someone's money and giving it
> to the artist doesn't need to exist.
>
> An artist is someone who so loves his or her art that he will, if
> necessary, take a job working in a coal mine, and use the funds to work
> on his art on the weekends. An artist is someone who, if their art was
> banned, they would continue to engage in the creation of it under pain of
> death. Any art that would not exist without government funding IS NOT ART.
>
> The artist does not have some special right to be free of monetary
> concerns in the creation of his art. The artist is not special, except to
> himself and those who love his work. Explain to me, oh artistic one, how
> the welfare of someone who sees fit to spend his time painting pictures
> is to be put before the welfare of one who spends his time manufacturing
> and selling widgets?
>
> You people are not artists. You are parasites.
>
> Eric Adair
>
>
>
Gary Martin
Bull. Art can survive just fine without government cash. Any art that
can't exist without the government stealing someone's money and giving it
to the artist doesn't need to exist.
An artist is someone who so loves his or her art that he will, if
necessary, take a job working in a coal mine, and use the funds to work
on his art on the weekends. An artist is someone who, if their art was
banned, they would continue to engage in the creation of it under pain of
death. Any art that would not exist without government funding IS NOT ART.
The artist does not have some special right to be free of monetary
concerns in the creation of his art. The artist is not special, except to
himself and those who love his work. Explain to me, oh artistic one, how
the welfare of someone who sees fit to spend his time painting pictures
is to be put before the welfare of one who spends his time manufacturing
and selling widgets?
You people are not artists. You are parasites.
Eric Adair
My impression of the public funding is that the vast majority of it
goes not to the artist to produce the art, but to those who make
it available to the public - museums, concert series, radio and
television stations and producers, etc. This is definitely in
the public interest.
--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Mar...@cis.umassd.edu
Eric Adair
: we pay for schools in Chicago?" The reason is that democracy cannot function
: -- we must fight for our rights to SPEAK and to be HEARD.
Ah, so now "freedom of the press" means that you have the right to take
my money, and use it to pay for a press from which to express your
opinions? Interesting interpretation. Freedom of religion, I suppose,
means that I have to pay for a preacher and a church, and maybe a cab
ride there for you?
Bull. Art can survive just fine without government cash. Any art that
Steve R. Grunau
government starts funding something, the inevitably expect (perhaps
logically so) some control over what they are funding. robert
mapplethorpe comes immediately to mind.... so what you end up having is
a limit on freedom of expression, in that those artists who conform to what
some council of beaureucrats (sp?) deems appropriate for funding gain an
unfair advantage over others who for whatever reason are denied funding...
people will support art that they can identify with, and if no one sees
any use in it perhaps the artist should stop and see whether or not he
should expect to make a living at his art. if certain citizens decide
they want to fund the arts, that is their decision, but it should also be
their decision as to what particular artist they wish to support. who
gives a flying .... what the gov't thinks?
just an opinion....
steve
sgr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
James Eoff
On 1 Mar 1995, Eric Adair wrote:
> Bo (bbe...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
> : On 28 Feb 1995, Eric Adair wrote:
>
> : I for one..will glady pay money to support other people in their quest to
> : express themselves, rather than another machine of death for the army.
>
> Then do so. Nothing's stopping you. Find your favorite artist and give
> him or her some money. As to the "Machine of death" bit, certainly the
> military is overfunded, and should be cut back. We have to maintain a
> national defense, but there's no excuse for the size of military that we
> have today.
>
> : I would not oppose if the funding for the arts are cut down..but I rather
> : see the defense budget cut down to build more schools and fix this joke
> : we call the educational system ... what would you rather pay for???
> : books/music/paintings/film or a nuclear warhead???
>
> I would prefer to pay for neither. That's an option, too, you know.
>
>
> : okay..if you say so... I don't care if you choose to call me or other
> : artists parasites...you have the freedom to do that.
>
> I didn't call artists parasites. I called parasites parasites. Any artist
> who does not engage in his or her chosen form of art unless it is
> government funded is a parasite. There are thousands, millions of real
> artists out there. Most of them sculpt out in their garage, or paint
> pictures in the breakfast nook, or go out and take pictures on the
> weekend. Their art matters only to them, and a lot of it may not be very
> good, but it's a truer art than that which must be subsidized by
> unwilling individuals.
>
> Eric Adair
>
>
>
There seems to be an assumption running here that most of the NEA funding
is going to individual/marginal artists. In actual fact, the better part
of the NEA budget goes to things like museums, symphonies, opera
companies, and art education programs. While the idea of an single
artist creating art without government funding is realistic, the idea of
an opera company running is less so. None of these institutions could
survive unchanged without NEA funding. An opera that sells out at
$50(and up) a ticket will still lose money, because they're fairly
expensive to produce. The only way to continue, would be to raise ticket
prices, and put them more in the realm of the elite than they already
are. While I might be able to accept live opera pricing itself quite out of
my range, (after all, I can't afford a BMW either) I have a hard time
believing that doing away with our museums and arts education programs
can do anybody any good, especially when it represents such a small part
of the total government budget.
Jim Eoff
zo...@u.washington.edu
Bo
> Just remember, military bands get much more funding than the NEA...why
> is one okay art and the other isn't?
>
> -jesse
>
>
wow...I like this line... really..I do... man... cool
as an artist myself..I understand how hard it is to be able to make art
without public support. (I am talking about fine arts) now.. if public
funding is gone... man.. all we ever see in galleries are portraits of
stuck up rich ass politicans again!!!!
this applies especially to the media/.... without a public broadcast
station... all we will ever get is 1. commerical TV 2. stuck up rich ass
politican spewing their oh so aristocrat mouths.
man if it is going to be a bunch of newts talk shows in the future....
I'll go fucking crazy...
Bo
I never tried to listen too hard
to what is said by the teachers about the school yard
You can rub your fingers on the black board
never get my eyes off the floor.
---Nation of Ulysses
Bruce A. Rothwell
> Making art is a freedom, for sure, and I don't deny your right
> to make it. But not on my dime and not on my time unless it means something
> to me: then I willingly participate in funding it. But it should'nt be
> forced on the taxpayer.
Ditto.
As an artist myself, I appreciate when someone recognizes my effort and
talent. And if I received federal grants and such, I'd be able to make
art all day long, and not have to go to work everyday.
However, if federal grants continue to exist, I just might start applying
for them... and all the liberals out there wouldn't like that... since my
"art" involves the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But in order to be fair to
EVERYONE, my "art" being federally funded should be perfectly acceptable,
right. Especially since liberals are so concerned about fairness and
equality for EVERYONE, right.
And besides, with 3 trillion national debt there is really no extra
money to spend on what some people consider non-essentials. In addition,
Washington, DC has no right to fund this type of activity because "Washington... it ain't your money!!" :-)
(And don't bother quoting that "separation of church and state" baloney.
There is nothing IN the Constitution about this. It's all from documents
and things people have done AFTER the Constitution was signed... most
likely in effort to keep Christians out politics.)
Now, let's get back to talking about making ART instead of talking
politics. "Art and politics" shouldn't be used in the same sentence...
except in this sentence. :-)
Bruce Rothwell
Songwriter/Artist
--
Bruce Rothwell / baro...@cca.rockwell.com / Cedar Rapids, IA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Int'l/CCA Employee by day......... Songwriter by night. <><
Bo
>
> The artist does not have some special right to be free of monetary
> concerns in the creation of his art. The artist is not special, except to
> himself and those who love his work. Explain to me, oh artistic one, how
> the welfare of someone who sees fit to spend his time painting pictures
> is to be put before the welfare of one who spends his time manufacturing
> and selling widgets?
I for one..will glady pay money to support other people in their quest to
express themselves, rather than another machine of death for the army.
Okay.. so maybe the idea might be wrong to support arts.. but, the real
issue here is that the U.S. needs money.... so the politicans take a look
at the budget which consists of mostly the Offense..ur... I mean defense
budget, and a very tiny part of the NEA, and the public broadcasting
channels... then they decide in their infinite wisdom to cut down on the
funding to NEA, thinking that snipping a bit or two from the little parts
that is not really costing YOU, the taxpayer of your all the money you
spent on taxes.......will make U.S. economic stable?? while fleets of
jets and bombers stand there???
I would not oppose if the funding for the arts are cut down..but I rather
see the defense budget cut down to build more schools and fix this joke
we call the educational system ... what would you rather pay for???
books/music/paintings/film or a nuclear warhead???
>
> You people are not artists. You are parasites.
>
okay..if you say so... I don't care if you choose to call me or other
artists parasites...you have the freedom to do that.
> Eric Adair
Eric Adair
: survive unchanged without NEA funding. An opera that sells out at
: $50(and up) a ticket will still lose money, because they're fairly
: expensive to produce. The only way to continue, would be to raise ticket
: prices, and put them more in the realm of the elite than they already
: are. While I might be able to accept live opera pricing itself quite out of
: my range, (after all, I can't afford a BMW either) I have a hard time
: believing that doing away with our museums and arts education programs
: can do anybody any good, especially when it represents such a small part
: of the total government budget.
I don't see it doing much good, but I don't see it doing a heck of a lot
of harm, either. If opera cannot find enough people that want to either
pay to see it, or donate money to it, then opera should be allowed to
die. Same with theater, or sculpture, or ballet. Art is nice, art is
important, but the regimented, structured things that we like to call
"art" are not crucial to the survival, or even the heppiness of humanity.
Art is expression. A child's finger painting is as much art as an opera.
More so, possibly, because it's a purer form of expression. Opera
certainly requires more skill and money, and it's more entertaining to a
lot of people, but that by no means makes it sacred. If it can't survive
without support from unwilling individuals, then it does not need to.
Should we spend public funds to keep low-rated TV shows on the air
because people refuse to watch them, even though some government panel
has decided they're "good"? Should we subsidize commercial recording
artists that don't sell any records, because we decide they're "good"?
If we are to decide that the public has a right to at least some
non-commercial art, even if they don't want it and don't want to pay for
it, because it supposedly does good for society, well, I would think that
before that, the public would have a right to free food. Survival is more
important than art, you know...
You know, there was art in this country before the NEA. Plenty of it. And
there will continue to be art in this country after the NEA is gone and
forgotten. There will always be rich patrons of the arts. There will
always be private organizations that support various art forms. There
will always be artists.
Eric Adair
ML Compton
In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
>In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe Hill) writes:
>>A GATHERING OF ARTISTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA
>>
>>On Feb. 28 at 9 pm artists, musicians, poets and others against the
>>"Contract With America" will assemble for an evening of readings, rants
>>and riffs at THE FEZ located at 380 Lafayette Street in Manhattan, New
>>York City.
>[anti-Contract stuff deleted]
>
>I couldn't resist, so here is my $.02
>
>As a fellow artist I am very sympathetic to the arts. But I don't want
>and don't agree with funding art with public money. I don't care how many
>governments have in the past, etc. Art is a personal expression/interpretaion
>which hopefully is relevant and connects with public perception/reality.
So, you're saying above (and below) that the only relevant art is popular
art. I sure hope you're not saying that the only good art is popular art.
Either way, I don't have much respect for you as an artist.
>Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
>that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the few should
>fund it, not the general public.
Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
>Making art is a freedom, for sure, and I don't deny your right
>to make it. But not on my dime and not on my time unless it means something
>to me: then I willingly participate in funding it. But it should'nt be
>forced on the taxpayer.
And I don't agree with my tax dollars going to fund an obsolete military
system. So maybe we should just abolish the whole government. That way
no one would have to worry about their tax dollars going to anything they
don't agree with. As amatter of fact, we wouldn't even have to worry about
tax dollars.
--
-- ML COMPTON / SWINGIN' DANGLERS
"Once again, we find that clowning and anarchy don't mix."
-The Tick, Super Hero, 1995
Eric Adair
: On 28 Feb 1995, Eric Adair wrote:
: I for one..will glady pay money to support other people in their quest to
: express themselves, rather than another machine of death for the army.
Then do so. Nothing's stopping you. Find your favorite artist and give
him or her some money. As to the "Machine of death" bit, certainly the
military is overfunded, and should be cut back. We have to maintain a
national defense, but there's no excuse for the size of military that we
have today.
: I would not oppose if the funding for the arts are cut down..but I rather
: see the defense budget cut down to build more schools and fix this joke
: we call the educational system ... what would you rather pay for???
: books/music/paintings/film or a nuclear warhead???
I would prefer to pay for neither. That's an option, too, you know.
: okay..if you say so... I don't care if you choose to call me or other
: artists parasites...you have the freedom to do that.
I didn't call artists parasites. I called parasites parasites. Any artist
Chris 'Coz' Costello
Christopher R. Ames <ca...@willamette.edu> wrote:
> I just want to say something real quick. The voters of the United
>States, through their elected representatives, will decide whether the
>Contract With America is a good thing. The right to vote for what we want
>in public policy is what our country was founded on. These artists
>against it have every right to lobby against it. But, just the same,
>people have the right to say things for it without being arribitarily
>labeled "close-minded" or "bigotted" or whatever the new hate speech may
>be. The voters will decide whether this contract will pass, just as they
>very liberally made a change in November from the established status qou
>that had been haunting us for 40 years.
>
>Christopher Ames
>ca...@willamette.edu
>
>flame away to me, not to the newsgroup
Not exactly. Voters decided that they didn't care and didn't
vote In November, allowing special interests and religious
fanatics the opportunity to get people they liked in office.
Now that they're in, they'll do whatever they can until they
get voted out again. I don't see any mid-term impeachments
or resignations happening, so we ARE stuck with them for at
least a little while. Unless we are a group that contributes
cold, hard cash, we can bitch and moan until we're blue in the
face for all the good it will do. The two-party system seems
to be inefficient by design - it gets frightening for a bunch
of people when one party or the other might actually DO something.
This is rambling already, so I'll quit before Newt comes
after me.
Later,
COZ
--
\/ Chris 'COZ' Costello \/ Hipness is transient. You have to change \/
/\ cl...@midway.uchicago.edu /\ in order to be continually hip. /\
\/ \/ \/
/\ /\ - Vinnie Colaiuta /\
t...@uabcomm.comm.uab.edu
>All in all, I'd like to see continued and increased funding for the
>N.E.A., and N.E.H, and the C.P.B., and I tell you what I'm going to
>do: I'll trade Newt one B2 bomber for the funding. Since, as a tax-
>payer, I'm part owner of the damn things. Or how about, what is the
>damn thing called...the Osprey Helocopter? I'm sure that either of
>these would more than cover both endowments and the C.P.B.
>
>
> - Bill
>
>| William Herndon \ MITRE, Secure Information Technology Dept. |
>| wher...@mitre.org \ MS-Z231, 703.883.6393 |
>| |
>| "We have entered the era of trickle-down compassion" - Rev. F.Chruch |
>| Me? Speak for MITRE? Bwahahahahaahahahahah!!!! |
Except, dear Bill, the "damn things" you speak of are the same "damn things"
that have given this country the ability to have never been militarily
invaded allowing you to continue to take part in your day to day activities
without drastic difficulties as our fellow world citizens in eastern Europe
and the Middle East are experiencing. Some people (and I'm sure you're
not one of them) still believe every other country except The U.S.A.
are governed by "nice people" and we have nothing to be concerned about
as far as they are concerned.
Your freedom to hate those "damn things" and to express your opinions
here in this newsgroup is a result of the existence of those same
"damn things".
peace, brother.
Tom
dustMit
> Joann Murdock (jmur...@mcs.com) wrote:
> : we pay for schools in Chicago?" The reason is that democracy cannot function
> : without an educated population. Free speech, education, artistic expression
> : -- we must fight for our rights to SPEAK and to be HEARD.
>
> Ah, so now "freedom of the press" means that you have the right to take
> my money, and use it to pay for a press from which to express your
> opinions? Interesting interpretation. Freedom of religion, I suppose,
> means that I have to pay for a preacher and a church, and maybe a cab
> ride there for you?
>
> Bull. Art can survive just fine without government cash. Any art that
> can't exist without the government stealing someone's money and giving it
> to the artist doesn't need to exist.
Why? Why does art subsidized by the Federal Government need not exist?
>
> An artist is someone who so loves his or her art that he will, if
> necessary, take a job working in a coal mine, and use the funds to work
> on his art on the weekends. An artist is someone who, if their art was
> banned, they would continue to engage in the creation of it under pain of
> death. Any art that would not exist without government funding IS NOT ART.
>
Do you actually believe an artist can survive off a grant from the NEA!? While
these grants may help, it's hard to believe one could simply up and quit a job
and pay The Bills with what the NEA provides. I do not know what sort of
budget the NEA functions with but it can't be much. Not in comparison to what
the CIA gets. So again, why does art subsidized by the NEA any less legit?
> The artist does not have some special right to be free of monetary
> concerns in the creation of his art. The artist is not special, except to
> himself and those who love his work. Explain to me, oh artistic one, how
> the welfare of someone who sees fit to spend his time painting pictures
> is to be put before the welfare of one who spends his time manufacturing
> and selling widgets?
>
> You people are not artists. You are parasites.
>
> Eric Adair
What do you have against the NEA? Why do you ride them for "stealing your
money"? Are there not more sinister government agencies who steal your money
for things like, uh, say, new hairdoos, hottubs, ashtrays, blow jobs, cocaine,
bombers . . . ? Being an artist is not EASY, as I hope you know. There are
much more terrible government programs to attack than the NEA. The NEA is
something, at least, positive. Why do you give them hell, Eric? They are
alright in comparison to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or the
goddamt CIA.
In bafflement,
Steve Forte
>
Christopher R. Ames
d...@tink.com
>
>
>
>I don't see it doing much good, but I don't see it doing a heck of a lot
>of harm, either. If opera cannot find enough people that want to either
>pay to see it, or donate money to it, then opera should be allowed to
>die. Same with theater, or sculpture, or ballet. Art is nice, art is
>important, but the regimented, structured things that we like to call
>"art" are not crucial to the survival, or even the heppiness of humanity.
It occurs to me that the author is speaking about more than art, he is
in fact, speaking about all publicly financed entertainment. By the same
token he would end subsidies to baseball teams, municpal support of
parades, 4th of July fireworks, etc. If none of this stuff is sacred
I personally would like to see an end to the building of football stadiums
and free folk festivals. Obviously, all tastes must be served and the arts
ask for and get a whole lot less than more organized sports.
Deborah Kapell
ko...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The treasure which you think not worth taking trouble and pains
find, this one alone is the real treasure you are longing for all
of your life. The glittering treasure you are hunting for day and
night lies buried on the other side of that hill yonder.
- B. Traven
Treasure of Sierra Madre
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Chern
: I didn't call artists parasites. I called parasites parasites. Any artist
: who does not engage in his or her chosen form of art unless it is
: government funded is a parasite. There are thousands, millions of real
This person is totally out of touch with reality. There is no art or
artist in this country being totally funded by the government. Most are
working out of their garages, as he goes on to say, or whatever, suffering
whatever ugly fate it is their lot in this land of idiots and heathens to
suffer. Some continue to beg at the government's door for a crust of bread
to help ease the burden just a mite for a short time. A very, very small
percentage of those actually get tossed a crumb. That is the reality. If
eating for one day out of 10,000 at the taxpayers' expense makes one a
parasite...well, study your own history and see if you ought to be stoned
as well, wise-guy. If that is more support than this country can afford,
it's a mighty sorry damn society ain't it?
Eric Adair
: It occurs to me that the author is speaking about more than art, he is
: in fact, speaking about all publicly financed entertainment. By the same
: token he would end subsidies to baseball teams, municpal support of
: parades, 4th of July fireworks, etc. If none of this stuff is sacred
: I personally would like to see an end to the building of football stadiums
: and free folk festivals. Obviously, all tastes must be served and the arts
: ask for and get a whole lot less than more organized sports.
I agree. The amount of money that the government wastes on building
baseball stadiums, football stadiums, and the like is a collosal waste of
taxpayer money, and should be abolished. It's certainly a larger waste
than arts funding could ever dream of being.
It's not the government's place to fund these sorts of things. Baseball
franchises should be forced to build their own stadiums if they want to
play their game. If someone wants to have a parade, there's no need for
the government to support it. Heck, private organizations put on parades
all the time, and fireworks displays, too. Non-profit organizations
could, and probably already do have folk and arts festivals. There's no
need for the government to have a hand in any of these things.
I'm not a religious-right republican. If you were expecting me to say
"Well, we've got to stop funding that dirty, subversive art, but public
subsidies for baseball franchises and 4th of July fireworks are an
important part of traditional American culture", then I'm sorry to have
disappointed you.
Eric Adair
Deborah Kapell
>Bo (bbe...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
>
>I didn't call artists parasites. I called parasites parasites. Any artist
>who does not engage in his or her chosen form of art unless it is
>government funded is a parasite. There are thousands, millions of real
>artists out there. Most of them sculpt out in their garage, or paint
>pictures in the breakfast nook, or go out and take pictures on the
>weekend. Their art matters only to them, and a lot of it may not be very
>good, but it's a truer art than that which must be subsidized by
>unwilling individuals.
>
>Eric Adair
When those who pay for art have had their fill of the 'free art', in the form
of graffiti, street musicians, ad hoc sculpting on public beaches, and street
theater they may be relieved and grateful to pay for the less rebellious stuff
that can be seen in small theaters in SOHO.
Deborah Kapell
broo...@tink.com
T.Herring
>
> In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
>
> >In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe Hill) writes:
> >>A GATHERING OF ARTISTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA
> >>
> >>On Feb. 28 at 9 pm artists, musicians, poets and others against the
> >>"Contract With America" will assemble for an evening of readings, rants
> >>and riffs at THE FEZ located at 380 Lafayette Street in Manhattan, New
> >>York City.
> >[anti-Contract stuff deleted]
> >
> >I couldn't resist, so here is my $.02
> >
> >As a fellow artist I am very sympathetic to the arts. But I don't want
> >and don't agree with funding art with public money. I don't care how many
> >governments have in the past, etc. Art is a personal expression/interpretaion
> >which hopefully is relevant and connects with public perception/reality.
>
> So, you're saying above (and below) that the only relevant art is popular
> art. I sure hope you're not saying that the only good art is popular art.
> Either way, I don't have much respect for you as an artist.
>
> >Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
> >that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the few should
> >fund it, not the general public.
>
> Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
Oh, please! Let's not resort to this sort of dialog. When all else
fails, just compare someone to a Nazi. It's the same as resorting
to name calling, and as sharp a weapon as accusing someone of racism.
T.Herring
t...@uabcomm.comm.uab.edu
Hey 'COZ',
Years ago I took a civics class, later a government class and even later,
numerous political science classes. Since that time I have taken part in
the election process a few times.
Either I totally misunderstood what I have gleaned over the years or
you are mistaken. In my experience people are elected to office because
voters DID vote. Not because somebody didn't. And as far as religious
fanatics, I don't believe there are enough of them in this country to have
the power you think they have. Maybe it's your definition of a religious
fanatic that needs a little polish. Most people in this country are down to
earth people, who go to work everyday and take part in leisure activities
in their free time and pay taxes. I know this is totally in contrast to what our
friend Peter Jennings tells you, but believe it.
These people are the "Folk" of this country who make it up and keep it
going. Another poster said something about taxes keeping our society
going or some such thing. But it is the "Folk". They are the ones that voted.
Just plain everyday people. Just because they weren't of the dope smoking
draft card burning (now I'm showing my age), nuke protesting, pro hammer
and sickle group doesn't make them religious fanatics.
And another thing. One party HAS done "something" for the past 40 years.
(interpret "something" as you want to. I know I do.) Let's give the other
party a chance.
Don't forget to register to vote.
Tom.
Christine Petersen
/ 250 million people = $5000/person/year The national outlay for the
NEA is 64 cents per person. The share per person for the savings and loan
bailout that we've all forgotten about (what was it that month, ice
skaters, a long forgotten war? I don't remember; short term memory) is
approximately $200 billion / 250,000,000 people = $800 outlay / individual.
but, oops, the republicans caused that soooo, that's no fun to bring up.
ML Compton
In a previous article, t...@uabcomm.comm.uab.edu () says:
>In article <3j4vid$i...@linus.mitre.org>, m22...@mwunix.mitre.org (William R Herndon) says:
>
>>All in all, I'd like to see continued and increased funding for the
>>N.E.A., and N.E.H, and the C.P.B., and I tell you what I'm going to
>>do: I'll trade Newt one B2 bomber for the funding. Since, as a tax-
>>payer, I'm part owner of the damn things. Or how about, what is the
>>damn thing called...the Osprey Helocopter? I'm sure that either of
>>these would more than cover both endowments and the C.P.B.
>
>Except, dear Bill, the "damn things" you speak of are the same "damn things"
>that have given this country the ability to have never been militarily
>invaded allowing you to continue to take part in your day to day activities
>without drastic difficulties as our fellow world citizens in eastern Europe
>and the Middle East are experiencing. Some people (and I'm sure you're
>not one of them) still believe every other country except The U.S.A.
>are governed by "nice people" and we have nothing to be concerned about
>as far as they are concerned.
>Your freedom to hate those "damn things" and to express your opinions
>here in this newsgroup is a result of the existence of those same
>"damn things".
Tom, you're missing the point about military spending. I don't like my
taxes going to the military any more than some peole like their taxes
going to the arts, and I've stated that here a number of times. My complaint
is overspending. I realize that we need a military, we just don't need so
damn much of one. How many more bombs do we need when we can already
destroy the world upteenth times over? How many more planes do we actually
need when we are not at war? How many more thousand dollar toilet seats
and screwdrivers do we actually need? This money is being spent unnecessarily
to line the pockets of friends of our caring politicians. And until someone
comes along to do something about it, I'll sream bloody murder about my
tax money going there, when I would much rather use it to support the arts.
--
-- ML COMPTON / SWINGIN' DANGLERS
I'll be out of town, actually, out of the country, from March 11 until
April 2. So if you want me to see an answer to this, you better email me.
ML Compton
In a previous article, ther...@speanet.iupui.edu ("T.Herring") says:
>ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
>>
>> In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
>>
>> >In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe Hill) writes:
>> >Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
>> >that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the few should
>> >fund it, not the general public.
>>
>> Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
>
>Oh, please! Let's not resort to this sort of dialog. When all else
>fails, just compare someone to a Nazi. It's the same as resorting
>to name calling, and as sharp a weapon as accusing someone of racism.
I thought about that statement long and hard before I wrote it. I know that
people use the 'nazi thing' much too easily these days. But what's true is
true. If you look in your history books, you'll see that this is exactly
the attitude the nazis had before all the burning began. I'm in NO WAY
calling Joe a Nazi, and if you think I did, than perhaps you should go back
and rereads my statement. I'm pointing out that some attitudes can be used
to support dangerous actions. Yeah, Nazis are passe and all that, but if
you think it can't happen again in this day and age, then you're just fooling
yourself.
--
-- ML COMPTON / SWINGIN' DANGLERS
William R Herndon
Gary Martin <mar...@fornax.cis.umassd.edu> wrote:
>
>My impression of the public funding is that the vast majority of it
>goes not to the artist to produce the art, but to those who make
>it available to the public - museums, concert series, radio and
>television stations and producers, etc. This is definitely in
>the public interest.
>
>--
>Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
>Mar...@cis.umassd.edu
Well said, and furthermore, public funding of the arts is important
for what it says about us, our society and values. Public funding
(yes, even funding of sometimes provocative or offensive art) shows
that we value free expression and that we, as a society, are not af-
raid to be challenged by our artists.
All in all, I'd like to see continued and increased funding for the
N.E.A., and N.E.H, and the C.P.B., and I tell you what I'm going to
do: I'll trade Newt one B2 bomber for the funding. Since, as a tax-
payer, I'm part owner of the damn things. Or how about, what is the
damn thing called...the Osprey Helocopter? I'm sure that either of
these would more than cover both endowments and the C.P.B.
Stuart Sechrest
|> There seems to be an assumption running here that most of the NEA funding
|> is going to individual/marginal artists. In actual fact, the better part
|> of the NEA budget goes to things like museums, symphonies, opera
|> companies, and art education programs.
A simple checklist for people examining their own beliefs:
1. I believe that the NEA should grant funds to individual
artists.
(a) Agree (b) Disagree
2. I believe that the NEA should grant funds to organizations
such as museums, orchestras, and theatrical companies.
(a) Agree (b) Disagree
By the way, the NEA originally (under Lyndon Johnson) granted funds only
to organizations. The NEA was expanded under Richard Nixon to grant funds
to individual artists.
--Stuart Sechrest
Peter Cash
Bo <bbe...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
...
>as an artist myself..I understand how hard it is to be able to make art
>without public support. (I am talking about fine arts) now.. if public
>funding is gone... man.. all we ever see in galleries are portraits of
>stuck up rich ass politicans again!!!!
Translation: Nobody likes the stuff you do well enough to pay you for it,
so you want to _force_ me to pay for it. I don't think so.
>this applies especially to the media/.... without a public broadcast
>station... all we will ever get is 1. commerical TV 2. stuck up rich ass
>politican spewing their oh so aristocrat mouths.
I do hope that your "art" (whatever it is) doesn't rely on your ability to
carry on articulate discourse.
>man if it is going to be a bunch of newts talk shows in the future....
>I'll go fucking crazy...
That's your problem.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |ca...@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ML Compton
In a previous article, zel...@intergate.net (Eric Adair) says:
>Joann Murdock (jmur...@mcs.com) wrote:
>: we pay for schools in Chicago?" The reason is that democracy cannot function
>: without an educated population. Free speech, education, artistic expression
>: -- we must fight for our rights to SPEAK and to be HEARD.
>
>Ah, so now "freedom of the press" means that you have the right to take
>my money, and use it to pay for a press from which to express your
>opinions? Interesting interpretation. Freedom of religion, I suppose,
>means that I have to pay for a preacher and a church, and maybe a cab
>ride there for you?
I think your 'right wing' is hitting you too hard in the head. If you reread
the paragraph above, you'll see it doesn't say anything about paying for
freedom of the press or religion. All it says is that we MUST fight for our
rights. And the way people like you continue to bend facts and statements
to fit your own agenda, it just shows that we not only have to fight, but
we have to be vigilant also.
>Bull. Art can survive just fine without government cash. Any art that
>can't exist without the government stealing someone's money and giving it
>to the artist doesn't need to exist.
I disagree, unless of course, you think that art should only be little
children with big eyes, dogs playing poker, or scenes of waves crashing
on the beach. Besides, the government is going to steal my money anyway,
so I'd just as soon see it go to an artist who creates than to the military
who destroys or spends it on an overpriced toilet seat.
>An artist is someone who so loves his or her art that he will, if
>necessary, take a job working in a coal mine, and use the funds to work
>on his art on the weekends. An artist is someone who, if their art was
>banned, they would continue to engage in the creation of it under pain of
>death. Any art that would not exist without government funding IS NOT ART.
Bullshit! The poor, starving, sacrificing artist is a tired cliche. This
is the real world, not some romantic novel that you'd like to read. We
need art in this world. Real art, not waves crashing on beaches. And artists
need to survive. Most struggling artists I know do have other jobs, but just
barely make it on their wages. They need the grants to finance their art,
not their living expenses.
>The artist does not have some special right to be free of monetary
>concerns in the creation of his art. The artist is not special, except to
>himself and those who love his work. Explain to me, oh artistic one, how
>the welfare of someone who sees fit to spend his time painting pictures
>is to be put before the welfare of one who spends his time manufacturing
>and selling widgets?
Does the person manufacturing and selling widgets have to pay for the
materials and time out of his own pockets? No. You're statement shows
your attitude about art. To you its just a product like any other. I
contend that art is something that makes living in this world quite a
bit easier. I can't say I've ever used a widget, but I use art everyday.
>You people are not artists. You are parasites.
It could be argued that all humans are parasites. But you, Sir, are a
shallow idiot.
--
-- ML COMPTON / SWINGIN' DANGLERS
Mark Spittal
: I just want to say something real quick. The voters of the United
: Contract With America is a good thing. The right to vote for what we want
: in public policy is what our country was founded on. These artists
: against it have every right to lobby against it. But, just the same,
: people have the right to say things for it without being arribitarily
: labeled "close-minded" or "bigotted" or whatever the new hate speech may
: be. The voters will decide whether this contract will pass, just as they
: very liberally made a change in November from the established status qou
: that had been haunting us for 40 years.
The problem is this: a good deal of the newly elected Republican
represenatives are bigots and close minded! They mouth words that
moderate their stance, but their votes show that they are guided by old
and ignorant ways if thinking.
Mark
Christine Petersen
>anual budget, which is about 200 billion over what the government actually
>steals each year. Defence art is only about 10-12% of the budget. NEA
>art is practicly nothing, but it is one of few things that the public will
>let the government really cut.
> The contract is not about a war on the rest of
>the world or a war on liberals or a war on taxpayers. It is a war on the
>government which is mortaging our future and stealing 1/3 of our production.
>Was feudalism that bad? At least those aristocrats didn't call themselves
>Democrats for anything like 40 years.
Defense is more than 10-12% of the budget. The interest on the national
debt run up in the 80s during the Reagan revolution is 15% of the budget
in itself. The amount payed is approximately equal to the debt every
year, too. So if we didn't have this expenditure, there would basically
be no huge deficit. The military budget is approximately 20% of the
budget.
ML Compton
In a previous article, zel...@intergate.net (Eric Adair) says:
>James Eoff (zo...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>
>: survive unchanged without NEA funding. An opera that sells out at
>: $50(and up) a ticket will still lose money, because they're fairly
>: expensive to produce. The only way to continue, would be to raise ticket
>: prices, and put them more in the realm of the elite than they already
>: are. While I might be able to accept live opera pricing itself quite out of
>: my range, (after all, I can't afford a BMW either) I have a hard time
>: believing that doing away with our museums and arts education programs
>: can do anybody any good, especially when it represents such a small part
>: of the total government budget.
>
>I don't see it doing much good, but I don't see it doing a heck of a lot
>of harm, either. If opera cannot find enough people that want to either
>pay to see it, or donate money to it, then opera should be allowed to
>die. Same with theater, or sculpture, or ballet. Art is nice, art is
>important, but the regimented, structured things that we like to call
>"art" are not crucial to the survival, or even the happiness of humanity.
And I disagree. Art is essential to the survival of the human race. Try
to imagine a world without art. Now tell me that the human race could
keep their sanity in a world like that, without that kind of expression
and beauty. We communicate through art. We relate through art. We would be
nothing without art.
>Art is expression. A child's finger painting is as much art as an opera.
>More so, possibly, because it's a purer form of expression. Opera
>certainly requires more skill and money, and it's more entertaining to a
>lot of people, but that by no means makes it sacred. If it can't survive
>without support from unwilling individuals, then it does not need to.
Why is it that the only real argument I hear from you people is that you
are forced unwillingly to fund the arts, and therefore the arts should not
be funded. We are also forced unwillingly to fund the military. I'm sure
you could find a vast number of people that agree with that. So should we
not put tax money into the military either? Or into politicians pockets
to pay them? I don't feel that any politician is doing a good job now,
so why should my tax money be used to pay their salaries? Why should we
even pay taxes, since there will always be a group of people who don't like
any one given thing that tax money goes into?
>Should we spend public funds to keep low-rated TV shows on the air
>because people refuse to watch them, even though some government panel
>has decided they're "good"? Should we subsidize commercial recording
>artists that don't sell any records, because we decide they're "good"?
No. Some government panel has decided that they're "worthy", which is
different from good. But you're right here. Who is to decide what is
worthy or what is good. It's a hard question to answer. Maybe we should
have this panel elected by the public that they're representing, instead
of having some biased politician appoint them.
>If we are to decide that the public has a right to at least some
>non-commercial art, even if they don't want it and don't want to pay for
>it, because it supposedly does good for society, well, I would think that
>before that, the public would have a right to free food. Survival is more
>important than art, you know...
The right to food is a whole different arguement, but I suspect that you
know that. You're just clouding the facts here. By the way, with the amount
of food we just destroy, or ship to other countries, we could feed all
our people here.
>You know, there was art in this country before the NEA. Plenty of it. And
>there will continue to be art in this country after the NEA is gone and
>forgotten. There will always be rich patrons of the arts. There will
>always be private organizations that support various art forms. There
>will always be artists.
There was art before the NEA. But that was a different time. Living is
much more complicated now, as is creating. Rich patrons and organizations
help, but we'd lose a lot by getting rid of the NEA.
I also go back to my second paragraph here. If the arts should be funded
only through private donations, then the vast majority of military spending
should also.
ML Compton
In a previous article, ca...@convex.com (Peter Cash) says:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950228...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>,
>Bo <bbe...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>...
>
>>as an artist myself..I understand how hard it is to be able to make art
>>without public support. (I am talking about fine arts) now.. if public
>>funding is gone... man.. all we ever see in galleries are portraits of
>>stuck up rich ass politicians again!!!!
>
>Translation: Nobody likes the stuff you do well enough to pay you for it,
>so you want to _force_ me to pay for it. I don't think so.
No one's forcing you to do anything. I pay taxes. The vast majority goes
to things that I don't agree with. Things like the military. Things like
politicians' paychecks. One of the only things that I don't mind my tax
money going to is the arts and public television. I think you'll find
that the majority of people in this country want some funding of the arts.
But you and the rest of the right wing jerks in this country don't care
what anyone in this wants if it interferes with your agenda.
>>this applies especially to the media/.... without a public broadcast
>>station... all we will ever get is 1. commercial TV 2. stuck up rich ass
>>politician spewing their oh so aristocrat mouths.
>
>I do hope that your "art" (whatever it is) doesn't rely on your ability to
>carry on articulate discourse.
Although his comments above are somewhat poorly written, I understand
perfectly well what he's saying. Maybe if you pulled your head out of
where its so firmly jammed, you would to.
>>man if it is going to be a bunch of newts talk shows in the future....
>>I'll go fucking crazy...
>
>That's your problem.
It's all of our problems.
Richard Singer
I'd like to paraphrase some of the myths I've seen repeated here and
counter each with a little reality:
1. "We need to cut funding to the arts in order to save money and
balance the budget."
Actually, with less than 1 percent of money going to arts funding, you'd
be much better off cutting the still-over-bloated defense budget, the "tax
incentives" and bailout money going to corporations, or the
social security payments that are going to wealthy old men. As everyone
must know by now, you'd do just as much cutting some of the money going
to military bands.
2. "The only art that needs government funding is the kind that can't
sell itself. Art that is worth the public's attention will survive by
the free market system."
Of course, it is very questionable how much correlation market success
has to artistic quality. But that's an issue that can take a whole
bunch of posts all by itself. My question is, do you people who assert
this kind of nonsense think that commercially successful art
thrives simply according to market demand, without a push from large
corporations? Art that is sold by corporations is given a huge financial
push, through promotion, advertising and a barrage of media that can drown
out anything else that tries to get the public's attention. And what kind
of art do you think corporations will fund and/or push? The guaranteed
money-makers, which means artists who have already made a ton of money
or artists who seem just like the artists who've made a ton of money.
New and innovative art -- the kind that might eventually find a market
when the rest of the world catches up, and then might be appreciated for
the influences that it has had on the popular art of the future -- won't
stand much of a chance. (For that matter, neither will much of the art
of the past -- and in that case, we'll lose even more of our sense of history.)
3. "Government funding of the arts means more government control."
There's a slight risk of that . . . But who would control the arts if
the government ceased funding them? The corporations, obviously. The
major corporations are acting more and more as our real government while
the official government is becoming increasingly powerless. Eliminating
arts funding will only put the arts almost completely into the
corporations' hands.
4. "Art doesn't need government support. There always has been art and
always will be [blah, blah, blah] . . ."
But never has there been so much corporate power with such easy access
to worldwide media. This is why now, more than ever, noncommercial artists
need a helping hand.
5. "It's nice to support arts, but it's more important to feed people."
Basic human needs can be provided for much more efficiently if we address
some of the budget concerns that I mentioned in item number one.
Meanwhile, we also need to feed people's minds. It is embarrassing how
much we underrate matters of culture in the U.S.A. Let's not eliminate
the little support of culture that we have (a tiny sum compared to what
is provided in the nations of Western Europe, for example).
Besides, eliminating public TV and radio (as Newty has proposed to do)
will do more than eliminate important access to the arts. It will also
eliminate our most important forums for political dissent -- and that is
what these conservatives are really after, isn't it?
-- Richard Singer
Tom Neff
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950228...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>,
>Bo <bbe...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>>as an artist myself..I understand how hard it is to be able to make art
>>without public support. (I am talking about fine arts) now.. if public
>>funding is gone... man.. all we ever see in galleries are portraits of
>>stuck up rich ass politicans again!!!!
>
>Translation: Nobody likes the stuff you do well enough to pay you for it,
>so you want to _force_ me to pay for it. I don't think so.
That's an amusing article to post from a company that loses money every
year. I guess nobody likes YOUR stuff well enough to pay your costs
either... better shut down! :-)
Of course, as an employee, you ARE one of those not-quite-recovered
costs, so you probably don't want them to act "rationally" and dispatch
you to the Richardson unemployment office. Better they should "_force_"
Merrill Growth and the other big holders to pay for you!
--
There is much to debate about the Federal role in arts support, even if
you're generally in favor of the idea. But to suggest that "paying
retail" is the only legitimate approach smacks of myopia, hypocrisy or
both. Without Federal financing of "unprofitable" activities, the
medium we are using to discuss this issue would not exist.
--
Tom Neff :: tn...@panix.com :: <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>
Steve R. Grunau
to rethink the realities of representative democracy. the only way this
could be true is if there were a referendum on the issue, and the result
made policy (pragmatically speaking, we can't be having referendums on
every issue that comes before congress, and NEA funding is probably one
of the issues of lesser importance anyhow--ie. it would end up costing
more to decide what to do about the NEA than to actually provide funding
at current levels). the other way is if people in the next election base
their votes for their representatives solely on the basis of how they
voted concerning this legislation, and said representatives realized this
was going to happen (in which case they would no doubt earnestly seek and
follow the voters' mandate), but once again, there are probably more
important issues to base your vote on.
i'm not suggesting any changes in the american system of democracy, i'm
just saying we shouldn't live under any illusion that we really have
anything to say about its outcome. (and even if the decision was in the
voter's hands, the voters are pawns in the hands of the media, and would
vote however the media told them to (told them 'objectively', on the
basis of 'the facts', of course).
steve
sgr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
Tom Neff
Joseph Suber <su...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
>You know, I think a B2 Bomber is a wonderfull piece of art. ...
Thank God. Now we can cut its funding with a clean conscience!
Eric Adair
: I think your 'right wing' is hitting you too hard in the head. If you reread
: the paragraph above, you'll see it doesn't say anything about paying for
: freedom of the press or religion. All it says is that we MUST fight for our
: rights. And the way people like you continue to bend facts and statements
: to fit your own agenda, it just shows that we not only have to fight, but
: we have to be vigilant also.
Ok, I'm sorry I didn't phrase my argument in obtusely literal
terminology. I'll state it again, obtusely:
The poster implied that his/her right to create art included government
subsidy for the performance or creation of his/her art. This is similar
to stating that freedom of the press requires a government subsidy for
the purchase of a printing press.
See the connection now?
: so I'd just as soon see it go to an artist who creates than to the military
: who destroys or spends it on an overpriced toilet seat.
Ah. Beautiful argument. Why spend it on either?
: Bullshit! The poor, starving, sacrificing artist is a tired cliche. This
: is the real world, not some romantic novel that you'd like to read. We
: need art in this world. Real art, not waves crashing on beaches. And artists
: need to survive. Most struggling artists I know do have other jobs, but just
: barely make it on their wages. They need the grants to finance their art,
: not their living expenses.
We have art in this world. Lots of it. Lots of it isn't very good, but
it's all art. If government subsidy of art stopped tomorrow, there would
continue to be art, some of it good.
And another thing... Where do you and your ilk get off deciding what's
good art and what's not? If some guy paints his own picture of crashing
waves, and he enjoys it, and those who he chooses to show it to enjoy it,
why isn't it real art? Is Real Art(tm) something that a bunch of elitist
snobs get together and vote on every year?
Art is expression. Anything that is done primarily for the purposes of
personal expression rather than strictly for commercial gain is art.
Expalain to me, please, why the painting of waves on the beach that Joe
Blow paints in his garage and enjoys is not art.
: Does the person manufacturing and selling widgets have to pay for the
: materials and time out of his own pockets? No. You're statement shows
No? Who pays for the widgets, then?
: your attitude about art. To you its just a product like any other. I
: contend that art is something that makes living in this world quite a
: bit easier. I can't say I've ever used a widget, but I use art everyday.
Art is not a product. Anything created strictly for monetary gain is not
art. I agree that art in its many forms makes living in this world
easier. I just don't subscribe to your elitist definition of art. You're
trying to make art something high and mighty that only you and your
elitist pig associates can be allowed to enjoy.
: It could be argued that all humans are parasites. But you, Sir, are a
: shallow idiot.
Ah, an insult. How refreshing.
Come back when you're ready to stop flinging crap and have something
substantive to say.
Eric Adair
Eric Adair
: for information the numbers on this go: national outlays = 1.25 trillion
Well, it's not really pertinent to what's being discussed. I'm not saying
"Cut only art funding", I'm saying "Cut just about everything, including
art funding", and am arging with those who disagree with me on that.
Art funding is only a tiny part of the mess that both the Republicans and
the Democrats have gotten us into. But it's still part of the mess.
Eric Adair
Eric Adair
: And I disagree. Art is essential to the survival of the human race. Try
: to imagine a world without art. Now tell me that the human race could
: keep their sanity in a world like that, without that kind of expression
: and beauty. We communicate through art. We relate through art. We would be
: nothing without art.
Yes, art is essential to the survival of the human race. The specific
arts that we currently pursue as a culture are not essential to the
survival of the human race. The human race would survive without opera.
The human race would survive without ballet. The human race would soon
destroy itself in the enforced absence of art.
: The right to food is a whole different arguement, but I suspect that you
: know that. You're just clouding the facts here. By the way, with the amount
: of food we just destroy, or ship to other countries, we could feed all
: our people here.
Not trying to cloud the facts at all... I am pointing out that if one
sets the precedent that one has an absolute right to a nonessential
thing, then one could make an argument for a right to an essential thing.
I'd be glad to argue the food thing with you, but since you've already
called me a shallow idiot, I think I'll pass.
: I also go back to my second paragraph here. If the arts should be funded
: only through private donations, then the vast majority of military spending
: should also.
The vast majority of miltary spending should be eliminated. Period.
Eric Adair
Joseph Suber
is that it will destroy the enemies of the US. The moon landing was
awesome performance art. The V-22 Osprey is a ballet of power. About the
only thing the government does that isn't art is rob me of my hard earned
cash. Does this mean the government should keep stealing from me to
produce this artwork?
Oh yeah, social security + medicare + medicaid = about 50% of the
anual budget, which is about 200 billion over what the government actually
steals each year. Defence art is only about 10-12% of the budget. NEA
art is practicly nothing, but it is one of few things that the public will
let the government really cut.
The contract is not about a war on the rest of
the world or a war on liberals or a war on taxpayers. It is a war on the
government which is mortaging our future and stealing 1/3 of our production.
Was feudalism that bad? At least those aristocrats didn't call themselves
Democrats for anything like 40 years.
"Your off-topic friend,"
Joe Suber
Michael Bowen
Adair) wrote:
> An artist is someone who so loves his or her art that he will, if
> necessary, take a job working in a coal mine, and use the funds to work
> on his art on the weekends. An artist is someone who, if their art was
> banned, they would continue to engage in the creation of it under pain of
> death. Any art that would not exist without government funding IS NOT ART.
You seem to be implying that the NEA's main business is giving direct
grants to individual artists, which is simply not true. By far the largest
chunk of the NEA budget goes to distribution (keeping theaters, museums,
and music organizations open) and education (arts education in public
schools, museums, etc.) Very little of this money funnels down to
individuals.
You also seem to be under the Romantic spell of the Tortured Artist meme.
Are you nineteen?
Michael Bowen
Derivatives Analyst
Leeson and Limon Investments, Ltd.
Tom Honles
In <1995Mar4.0...@lafn.org>, ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) writes:
>In a previous article, zel...@intergate.net (Eric Adair) says:
>>James Eoff (zo...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>>: survive unchanged without NEA funding. An opera that sells out at
["liberally" deleting to conserve badwidth, pun enjoyed]
>>I don't see it doing much good, but I don't see it doing a heck of a lot
>>of harm, either. If opera cannot find enough people that want to either
>>pay to see it, or donate money to it, then opera should be allowed to
>>die. Same with theater, or sculpture, or ballet. Art is nice, art is
>>important, but the regimented, structured things that we like to call
>>"art" are not crucial to the survival, or even the happiness of humanity.
>And I disagree. Art is essential to the survival of the human race. Try
>to imagine a world without art. Now tell me that the human race could
What a crock. You got it reverse. Art flows out of humanity's survival.
Not the other way around. Art does not exist in a vacuum, it exists because
people exist. People don't need governments to create art. A quick tour
of history will show that cultures have been doing art a heck of a lot longer
than you care to admit. Art will happen whether special interest politicians
are doling out pork or not.
>>Art is expression. A child's finger painting is as much art as an opera.
>Why is it that the only real argument I hear from you people is that you
>are forced unwillingly to fund the arts, and therefore the arts should not
>be funded. We are also forced unwillingly to fund the military. I'm sure
>you could find a vast number of people that agree with that. So should we
And you could find a vaster number who think we should keep military well
funded. That's exactly my point a few hundred posts ago in this flamewar.
Public funds are public funds, and are subject to scrutiny so that the
public is well served, not so that a small segment of the population can
find a government buyer for art that no one else will buy. I think you would
like to make art something 'pure' and apart from any commercial or financial
considerations, but fact of the matter is that appreciation of art goes
hand in hand with financial resources sponsoring it. So those who appreciate
art which expresses their viewpoints about controversial subjects should
be the ones funding it.
>>Should we spend public funds to keep low-rated TV shows on the air
>>because people refuse to watch them, even though some government panel
>>has decided they're "good"? Should we subsidize commercial recording
>>artists that don't sell any records, because we decide they're "good"?
>
>No. Some government panel has decided that they're "worthy", which is
>different from good. But you're right here. Who is to decide what is
>worthy or what is good. It's a hard question to answer. Maybe we should
>have this panel elected by the public that they're representing, instead
>of having some biased politician appoint them.
Oh, so now you want more politicians, huh? That's all we need.:-|
>>You know, there was art in this country before the NEA. Plenty of it. And
>>there will continue to be art in this country after the NEA is gone and
>>forgotten. There will always be rich patrons of the arts. There will
>>always be private organizations that support various art forms. There
>>will always be artists.
Agree! agree! agree!
>
>There was art before the NEA. But that was a different time. Living is
>much more complicated now, as is creating. Rich patrons and organizations
>help, but we'd lose a lot by getting rid of the NEA.
Disagree! disagree! disagree!
Thanks for the entertainment.
Tom
P.S. apologies to a few newsgroups I could not cross-post to that the
original post had posted to - our news server does not carry some
of those. :-)
******************************************************************
Tom Honles
EMail: t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us OR t...@f945.n102.z1.fidonet.org
******************************************************************
Tom Honles
>>I couldn't resist, so here is my $.02
>>As a fellow artist I am very sympathetic to the arts. But I don't want
>>and don't agree with funding art with public money. I don't care how many
You really amuse me. Can you paint the word 'hypocritical'?
I wasn't after your respect, ML. I was after being able to express my $.02
here on an important issue. Consider it my 'verbal art'.
Isn't it funny you are flaming me back here for my free expression of idea,
(since you don't agree with my viewpoint), yet you would want me to pay for
someone else to create 'art' that does fit with you 'mind mold?' Because if
it is fair for liberal viewpoints, it is fair for conservative viewpoints.
But I know that just makes you wretch.
Sorry for the pain. :-)
Tom
Miriam Fried
> In a previous article, ther...@speanet.iupui.edu ("T.Herring") says:
>
> >ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
> >>
> >> In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
> >>
> >> >In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe
Hill) writes:
>
> >> >Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
> >> >that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the
few should
> >> >fund it, not the general public.
> >>
> >> Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
> >
> >Oh, please! Let's not resort to this sort of dialog. When all else
> >fails, just compare someone to a Nazi. It's the same as resorting
> >to name calling, and as sharp a weapon as accusing someone of racism.
>
> I thought about that statement long and hard before I wrote it. I know that
> people use the 'nazi thing' much too easily these days. But what's true is
> true. If you look in your history books, you'll see that this is exactly
> the attitude the nazis had before all the burning began.
Wasn't it Goebbels who said, "When I hear the word 'culture', I get out my
revolver"?
T.Herring
>
> In a previous article, ther...@speanet.iupui.edu ("T.Herring") says:
>
> >ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
> >>
> >> In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
> >>
> >> >In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe Hill) writes:
>
> >> >Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
> >> >that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the few should
> >> >fund it, not the general public.
> >>
> >> Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
> >
> >Oh, please! Let's not resort to this sort of dialog. When all else
> >fails, just compare someone to a Nazi. It's the same as resorting
> >to name calling, and as sharp a weapon as accusing someone of racism.
>
> I thought about that statement long and hard before I wrote it. I know that
> people use the 'nazi thing' much too easily these days. But what's true is
> true. If you look in your history books, you'll see that this is exactly
> the attitude the nazis had before all the burning began.
I don't think the Nazi attitude was one of advocating popular art to the
exclusion of obscure work, but one of destroying everything that offended
their philosophy. They set out to destroy everything Jewish, and even
a lot of Christian works were banned or burned. In the schools, prayers
were replaced with Nazi affirmations. In schoolbooks, references to the
Bible were banned or censored. They set out to brainwash everyone,
especially that country's youth.
Saying that "Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant
art... stuff that is relevant only to a few and notthe general public"
in no way resemblances the Nazi attitude the 1930's. This person is
merely pointing out that there's a lot of crap out there that passes
for "art", just like there are a lot of gov't grants to study VERY
irrelevant things -- like testing which brand of ketchup is really the
thickest. This irrelevant art shouldn't be funded at a FEDERAL level.
If California wants that kind of art, let their taxpayers fund it. If
your communitiy wants to fund weird, cutting edge art, then fine, go
ahead. Just don't expect EVERYONE in the country to pay for it. There
are plenty of worthy, artistic things the federal government SHOULD be
funding -- PBS, museums, encouraging the arts for young people. How
you avoid funding the "irrelevant" stuff is beyond me, but a person has
a right to be upset when they see it happen (and that doesn't make them
resemble a Nazi).
> I'm in NO WAY
> calling Joe a Nazi, and if you think I did, than perhaps you should go back
> and rereads my statement. I'm pointing out that some attitudes can be used
> to support dangerous actions. Yeah, Nazis are passe and all that, but if
> you think it can't happen again in this day and age, then you're just fooling
> yourself.
I have reread it. I did before I send the message. I never said that
you called him a Nazi. I said that you compared him to one. Like I said
before, that is a very sharp weapon to wield against someone. And I do
believe it can happen again (it has in Cambodia).
T.Herring
Steve R. Grunau
unequivocably supporting or condemning nea funding. after reading alot
of the posts concerning where this funding is actually going, i have
moderated my opinion somewhat...
i still think that funding for individual artists is inappropriate. as
an artist, i have had to put out a fair chunk of money for purchasing the
equipment mecessary for me to make and record music, and if i intend to
go further this is going to be a continuous expense. i don't expect the
governemnt to give me money for this, i don't see what the gov't has to
do with it. on a bigger scale, one thing that really irritated alot of
people here in canada is the federal gov't contracting for thousands and
thousands of dollars (hundreds?) for a picture to put up in some federal
building and all we got was a big red dot on a matching background--did
it just take hundreds of hours to conceive of this idea, or is it the
expertise we're paying for--something anyone with two cans of paint and a
really big piece of canvas could do....
on the other hand, i can see the need for federal funding of museums and
things like public radio (although the public radio station here in
alberta recently took heavy funding cuts and raises most of its money
through campaigns on the air and the public sending in donations). so
limited funding for some of these _institutions_, but as far as i'm
concerned we shouldn't be paying money directly to the artist...
steve
sgr...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
Chris 'Coz' Costello
lies in the distribution system for non-recording art. In
reading your argument, your anti-corporate stance (a subject
I'm not going to debate, as that's a totally different kind
of flying altogether) points towards the way major and
independent record labels work, with no assistance from the
government. Majors dominate by sheer force, but there are
huge numbers of small labels that have good enough distribution
to reach a large enough quantity of people to break a new
artist. So the new and innovative recording artists can
reach the public, and if they're successful, the big guns
grab them and ruin them ;)
I'm not sure if this sort of system is really feasible for
painters, sculptors, or opera buffs (those would be opera
singers who perform naked?), but it is an alternative to
government funding. Just an idea. Feel free to rip it
apart.
And it looks like there are really three parties: Democrats,
Republicans, and Cynics.
And, yes, that puts me in the third category.
Later,
COZ
--
\/ Chris 'COZ' Costello \/ Hipness is transient. You have to change \/
/\ cl...@midway.uchicago.edu /\ in order to be continually hip. /\
\/ \/ \/
/\ /\ - Vinnie Colaiuta /\
Polly Moller
February 1995:
Golden Palominos "Little Suicides" Restless
Elastica "Stutter" Geffen
Hole "Violet" Geffen
Cindy Lee Berryhill "Radio Astronomy" Cargo
Katell Keineg "Franklin" Elektra
Siouxsie & "O Baby" Geffen
the Banshees
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Our air schedule:
Mountain View Community TV Fridays, 9:30 p.m.
KSAR Saratoga, CA Tuesdays, 5:00 p.m.
(new timeslot: 7:00 p.m. starting
March 14th)
Santa Cruz County Community
Television (check local listings!)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polly Moller * ni...@netcom.com * CA lic. plate: X FILES *
Flutist, Conductor, Teacher / Producer, _Women's Alternative_
"Normal is not what I feel." - Fox Mulder
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce A. Rothwell
In article <D4vG1...@lazrus.cca.rockwell.com>, baro...@cca.rockwell.com (Bruce A. Rothwell) writes:
>
> In article <D4u40...@midway.uchicago.edu>, cl...@quads.uchicago.edu (Chris 'Coz' Costello) writes:
>
> > Not exactly. Voters decided that they didn't care and didn't
> > vote In November, allowing special interests and religious
> > fanatics the opportunity to get people they liked in office.
>
> Not exactly. Some voters _didn't_ vote, some voters _did_.
> What happened was more people that are conservative voted
> than did liberals. That's the way the system works... it just
> didn't work the way you wanted it to on this go around.
>
> > Now that they're in, they'll do whatever they can until they
> > get voted out again.
>
> Again, this is the way the system works. Don't like it, get the
> laws changed.
>
> > ... The two-party system seems
> > to be inefficient by design - it gets frightening for a bunch
> > of people when one party or the other might actually DO something.
>
> The only thing that is "frightening" is that anyone would find it
> frightening to be held to a higher standard of moral and social
> decency, code of honor, and moral compass.
>
> --
>
> Bruce Rothwell / baro...@cca.rockwell.com / Cedar Rapids, IA
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rockwell Int'l/CCA Employee by day......... Songwriter by night. <><
--
Bruce Rothwell / baro...@cca.rockwell.com / Cedar Rapids, IA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Int'l/CCA Employee by day......... Songwriter by night. <><
ML Compton
In a previous article, zel...@intergate.net (Eric Adair) says:
>ML Compton (ad...@lafn.org) wrote:
>
>: I think your 'right wing' is hitting you too hard in the head. If you reread
>: the paragraph above, you'll see it doesn't say anything about paying for
>: freedom of the press or religion. All it says is that we MUST fight for our
>: rights. And the way people like you continue to bend facts and statements
>: to fit your own agenda, it just shows that we not only have to fight, but
>: we have to be vigilant also.
>
>Ok, I'm sorry I didn't phrase my argument in obtusely literal
>terminology. I'll state it again, obtusely:
>
>The poster implied that his/her right to create art included government
>subsidy for the performance or creation of his/her art. This is similar
>to stating that freedom of the press requires a government subsidy for
>the purchase of a printing press.
Well, It's similar if you really want to stretch the point. I will agree
though, that if the poster did say that his right to create art "includes
a government grant", then he was totally off base. The gov't should subsidize
his art, if it is deemed worthy (which opens up another can of worms. See
below.), but he has no 'right' to it.
>: so I'd just as soon see it go to an artist who creates than to the military
>: who destroys or spends it on an overpriced toilet seat.
>
>Ah. Beautiful argument. Why spend it on either?
Because gov't subsidy of art only costs me and you about 65 cents a year,
while military spending runs us in the hundreds. I don't think that kicking
in $.65 is going to break anyone. I wouldn't mind spending it on the military
either if they'd keep some control on it. It's funny that all these people
are screaming to control something that costs them pennies, while many
more dollars just get flushed down that overpriced toilet and they don't
seem to care. This doesn't even cover the saving and loans scam, and overly
large gov't paychecks.
>: Bullshit! The poor, starving, sacrificing artist is a tired cliche. This
>: is the real world, not some romantic novel that you'd like to read. We
>: need art in this world. Real art, not waves crashing on beaches. And artists
>: need to survive. Most struggling artists I know do have other jobs, but just
>: barely make it on their wages. They need the grants to finance their art,
>: not their living expenses.
>
>We have art in this world. Lots of it. Lots of it isn't very good, but
>it's all art. If government subsidy of art stopped tomorrow, there would
>continue to be art, some of it good.
Yes there would be, but a lot of good art would never be. I'd rather spend
the 65 cents a year and have it.
>And another thing... Where do you and your ilk get off deciding what's
>good art and what's not? If some guy paints his own picture of crashing
>waves, and he enjoys it, and those who he chooses to show it to enjoy it,
>why isn't it real art? Is Real Art(tm) something that a bunch of elitist
>snobs get together and vote on every year?
Yeah. You're right. I was off base with that remark. But right now, the
only elitist snobs I see getting together to vote on what good art is
is the House Republicans. So what gives THEM the right to dictate to us,
and why aren't YOU saying anything about them?
>Art is expression. Anything that is done primarily for the purposes of
>personal expression rather than strictly for commercial gain is art.
Actually, even a lot of stuff done for commercial gain is art. Here you
are defining art after telling me that I have no right to.
>Expalain to me, please, why the painting of waves on the beach that Joe
>Blow paints in his garage and enjoys is not art.
It is art. IMO (notice I say IMO) it is not good art. In my Mom's opinion,
it is good art. I purposely choose Waves, poker playing Dogs, and big-eyed
children (the last two, you cut out of my post. Why? Do you agree about them?)
because I don't see them being attacked by those Republican 'elitist snobs'.
>: your attitude about art. To you its just a product like any other. I
>: contend that art is something that makes living in this world quite a
>: bit easier. I can't say I've ever used a widget, but I use art everyday.
>
>Art is not a product. Anything created strictly for monetary gain is not
>art.
There you go defining again. What gives YOU the right to decide what is art?
And why is your definition right and mine wrong?
>I agree that art in its many forms makes living in this world
>easier. I just don't subscribe to your elitist definition of art.
No. But you seem ready to subscribe to your own elitist definition of art.
>You're
>trying to make art something high and mighty that only you and your
>elitist pig associates can be allowed to enjoy.
Not true at all. But 'high and mighty' art should be able to flourish with
the lowbrow items, and just because our society caters to the, IMO, lowest
common denominator, all other art shouldn't be driven out.
>: It could be argued that all humans are parasites. But you, Sir, are a
>: shallow idiot.
>
>Ah, an insult. How refreshing.
Oh, give me a break. What is it with you guys? You can insult (parasites,
elitist pig associates), but if someone else does the same back, you start
crying big tears. Grow up!
>Come back when you're ready to stop flinging crap and have something
>substantive to say.
And with you and your ilk, the only thing substantive would be to agree
with you, which I'm not about to do. And I'm only flinging the crap back.
--
-- ML COMPTON / SWINGIN' DANGLERS
I'll be out of town, actually, out of the country, from March 11 until
April 2. So if you want me to see an answer to this, you better email me.
ML Compton
In a previous article, zel...@intergate.net (Eric Adair) says:
>ML Compton (ad...@lafn.org) wrote:
>
>: And I disagree. Art is essential to the survival of the human race. Try
>: to imagine a world without art. Now tell me that the human race could
>: keep their sanity in a world like that, without that kind of expression
>: and beauty. We communicate through art. We relate through art. We would be
>: nothing without art.
>
>Yes, art is essential to the survival of the human race. The specific
>arts that we currently pursue as a culture are not essential to the
>survival of the human race. The human race would survive without opera.
>The human race would survive without ballet. The human race would soon
>destroy itself in the enforced absence of art.
Yeah. So what's your point?
>: The right to food is a whole different argument, but I suspect that you
>: know that. You're just clouding the facts here. By the way, with the amount
>: of food we just destroy, or ship to other countries, we could feed all
>: our people here.
>
>Not trying to cloud the facts at all... I am pointing out that if one
>sets the precedent that one has an absolute right to a nonessential
>thing, then one could make an argument for a right to an essential thing.
But didn't you just say that the absence of art would destroy the human race?
I'd call that pretty damn essential.
>I'd be glad to argue the food thing with you, but since you've already
>called me a shallow idiot, I think I'll pass.
Well, you called me a parasite first. If you're going to insult, expect
insults in return.
>: I also go back to my second paragraph here. If the arts should be funded
>: only through private donations, then the vast majority of military spending
>: should also.
>
>The vast majority of miltary spending should be eliminated. Period.
At least we agree on something. Of course, if the military only cost me
65 cents a year, I wouldn't be complaining about them. That's why I don't
understand all this complaining about the arts budget.
scd110
su...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Joseph Suber) writes:
> You know, I think a B2 Bomber is a wonderfull piece of art. An added benefit
> is that it will destroy the enemies of the US.
Contrary to your opinion, I consider the B2 Bomber nothing more than an
agent of destruction. Although this may be a matter of artistic
opinion, I think that the function of a B2 Bomber is nothing more than
to aid in the destruction of those individuals who we regard as
enemies. I wonder why you don't even question the government spending
money to kill individuals half-way across the globe who somehow
threaten our national interest. These people who we purge mercilessly
benefit our business interests and not our national security. This is
Cold War myth number one. It is highly unlikely that Ho Chi Mihn could
have invaded the United States. To the contrary, he, like the artists
who are critical of our government, didn't appeal to our opinions--in
this case, your opinions.
Hitler didn't see a need for artists that were critical of his
regieme--most of the quality artists left the country. The ones who
stayed behind remained as pawns to politics. Shouldn't art transcend
politics. You say that art is not a necessary part of the US budget;
somehow it is sucking our productive capacity dry. Agreed, we don't
need to fund art through the federal government, but if you truly
appreciate good art, I think that you can see how funding can encourage
artists to engage in their craft. Without federal funding, art is the
bastard of popular culture. Although this does not damn art to
perpetual poor quality, this does eliminate that art which does not
pander to big business interests.
Yes, art does oppose big business. Our minds are constantly trying
to repel the barrage we recieve every day of how to think and behave
according to the standards that business puts forth. Nightly news
tells us that it is irresponsible to believe that war is
unnecessary--to think differently is simply appalling. Business tells
us all to buy the same things (American things, of course) so that we
can live appropriately in this increasingly plastic society. Big
business tells us that good art is Norman Rockwell and very little
else.
I'm not trying to criticize Norman Rockwell per se, but the fact
remains that art is one of those rare things in society that actually
encourages each individual to think freely--or at least in a different,
non-corporate manner. It tells us not to buy the products that they
sell us. Weimar Germany was perhaps the most culturally ferment place
in the world during the interwar years. When Hitler came to power, the
artists didn't stand up. No, Newt is no nazi--I'm not that
simple-minded, however the same principle applies. Artists need to
criticize the government and keep us from becoming brainwashed by a few
interests. Art is not necessary, however it is life-giving. A B2
Bomber, well . . . that's up to you.
Kai Quale
> Very interesting post, Richard. I guess part of the problem
> lies in the distribution system for non-recording art. In
> reading your argument, your anti-corporate stance (a subject
> I'm not going to debate, as that's a totally different kind
> of flying altogether) points towards the way major and
> independent record labels work, with no assistance from the
> government. Majors dominate by sheer force, but there are
Majors ? Are there companies specializing in major chords ? How about
minors ? Augmented ? I sure would be a bit skeptical toward someone
advertised as a 'dim' company... ;-)
Kai
ML Compton
In a previous article, ther...@speanet.iupui.edu ("T.Herring") says:
>ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
>>
>> In a previous article, ther...@speanet.iupui.edu ("T.Herring") says:
>>
>> >ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
>> >>
>> >> >In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe Hill) writes:
>>
>> >> >Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean
>> >> >stuff that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So
>> >> >the few should fund it, not the general public.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
>> >
>> >Oh, please! Let's not resort to this sort of dialog. When all else
>> >fails, just compare someone to a Nazi. It's the same as resorting
>> >to name calling, and as sharp a weapon as accusing someone of racism.
>>
>> I thought about that statement long and hard before I wrote it. I know that
>> people use the 'nazi thing' much too easily these days. But what's true is
>> true. If you look in your history books, you'll see that this is exactly
>> the attitude the nazis had before all the burning began.
>
>I don't think the Nazi attitude was one of advocating popular art to the
>exclusion of obscure work, but one of destroying everything that offended
>their philosophy. They set out to destroy everything Jewish, and even
>a lot of Christian works were banned or burned. In the schools, prayers
>were replaced with Nazi affirmations. In schoolbooks, references to the
>Bible were banned or censored. They set out to brainwash everyone,
>especially that country's youth.
And what offended their philosophy? Mostly obscure work, i.e. stuff they
didn't understand, so therefore it had to be a threat to the State. This
is the same attitude that we're getting from our ever caring gov't officials
now. Do you really believe that Newt wants to get rid of gov't funding for
the arts because it costs so much? It cost each of us about 65 cents a year.
That's all. This is all just an excuse to control art. They want to get
rid of the stuff they don't understand. What they don't understand scares
them. It must be a threat if they can't comprehend it. And that, my friend,
is exactly what they Nazis set out to do. Control art.
>Saying that "Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant
>art... stuff that is relevant only to a few and notthe general public"
>in no way resemblances the Nazi attitude the 1930's.
Not true. When the Nazis started destroying art, one excuse was that it
was not relevant or for the good of the general public.
>This person is
>merely pointing out that there's a lot of crap out there that passes
>for "art", just like there are a lot of gov't grants to study VERY
>irrelevant things -- like testing which brand of ketchup is really the
>thickest.
And who are you, or anyone else, that you are able to say what is relevant
and irrelevant in the art world? If you think that the only relevant art is
art that the general public understands, then you are way off base. Also,
what's relevant to me may not be relevant to you. So why should you, or
anyone else, get to decide what everyone can see?
>This irrelevant art shouldn't be funded at a FEDERAL level.
>If California wants that kind of art, let their taxpayers fund it. If
>your communitiy wants to fund weird, cutting edge art, then fine, go
>ahead. Just don't expect EVERYONE in the country to pay for it.
So where do we draw the line. I happen to like a lot of 'weird, cutting
edge art'. Why should MY tax money, which I don't mind giving to 'weird,
cutting edge art', only go to 'relevant' art that I find boring.
>There
>are plenty of worthy, artistic things the federal government SHOULD be
>funding -- PBS, museums, encouraging the arts for young people.
Agreed. But our wonderful gov't wants to cut funding to those things also.
>How
>you avoid funding the "irrelevant" stuff is beyond me, but a person has
>a right to be upset when they see it happen (and that doesn't make them
>resemble a Nazi).
>
>> I'm in NO WAY
>> calling Joe a Nazi, and if you think I did, than perhaps you should go back
>> and rereads my statement. I'm pointing out that some attitudes can be used
>> to support dangerous actions. Yeah, Nazis are passe and all that, but if
>> you think it can't happen again in this day and age, then you're just fooling
>> yourself.
>
>I have reread it. I did before I send the message. I never said that
>you called him a Nazi. I said that you compared him to one.
I didn't compare him to one. I pointed out that what he was saying was the
same thing that the Nazis used as an excuse. He may not have known that, or
he may have known it. I just wanted him to know that what may seem like an
innocent comment, can be used for not-so-innocent purposes if one lets it.
>Like I said
>before, that is a very sharp weapon to wield against someone. And I do
>believe it can happen again (it has in Cambodia).
It's happening in lots of places, and we're fooling ourselves if we think
that it can't happen here.
Yet Another Steve
(FUCHS JESSE MICHAEL) wrote:
> Just remember, military bands get much more funding than the NEA...why
> is one okay art and the other isn't?
It's because everyone wants to own several recordings of military bands
playing hits like the "Colonel Bogie March," whereas nobody wants any of those
stupid recordings of music from Wolf Trap, or those communistic videos like
"Upstairs Downstairs" or "Tales of the City".
After all, it's not like you can get people to march in step by playing
grunge or classical or metal or traditional blues or pop music. No, for
marching, nothing but military bands will do, so we need to support several
hundred of them just in case we should feel like going out marching one day.
Steve
Julie
T.Herring <ther...@speanet.iupui.edu> wrote:
>ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
>> In a previous article, ther...@speanet.iupui.edu ("T.Herring") says:
>> >ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
>> >> In a previous article, t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us (Tom Honles) says:
>> >> >In <spirit-2602...@204.183.126.188>, spi...@escape.com (Joe Hill) writes:
>>
>> >> >Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art. I mean stuff
>> >> >that is relevant only to a few and not the general public. So the few should
>> >> >fund it, not the general public.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds close to the excuses the Nazis used for burning books and art.
>> >
>> >Oh, please! Let's not resort to this sort of dialog. When all else
>> >fails, just compare someone to a Nazi. It's the same as resorting
>> >to name calling, and as sharp a weapon as accusing someone of racism.
T. Herring,
You need to check your history books before you accuse M.L. of
mere name-calling. The Nazis, as part of their general regime of
oppression, came down very hard on any artists interested in the new
modern styles that were developing in Europe, styles that no one would
find offensive now. The Nazis held a famous art exhibition called
"Degenerate Art" in which they displayed the works of these serious and
progressive artists in order to brand them as "degenerates" and make
them ostrasized. A few years ago there was a very successful touring
exhibit of this Nazi-labelled "Degenerate Art", which I read a large
article about in the local newspaper. Check out any art history book;
the Nazis' attempt to stamp out modern art should be chronicled. I
learned about it in my Art History 101 survey in college - it's not
obscure knowledge at all that the Nazis were against any kind of modern
and progressive art in general, not just art that was Jewish or
anti-Christian or anti-German. I believe that a lot of the best German
artists left the country during this period.
>I don't think the Nazi attitude was one of advocating popular art to the
>exclusion of obscure work, but one of destroying everything that offended
>their philosophy. They set out to destroy everything Jewish, and even
>a lot of Christian works were banned or burned. In the schools, prayers
>were replaced with Nazi affirmations. In schoolbooks, references to the
>Bible were banned or censored. They set out to brainwash everyone,
>especially that country's youth.
Well then, I'm afraid you're wrong. The Nazis wanted to stamp out
anything that led people to think freely or question things or seek out
change, and modern art does all of that. Think about it, why do
oppressive regimes (i.e. China during the Cultural Revolution) seek to
rid their countries of art and culture? Why do they bother? Why do
they go to such extreme lengths?
>Saying that "Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant
>art... stuff that is relevant only to a few and notthe general public"
>in no way resemblances the Nazi attitude the 1930's. This person is
>merely pointing out that there's a lot of crap out there that passes
>for "art", just like there are a lot of gov't grants to study VERY
>irrelevant things -- like testing which brand of ketchup is really the
>thickest. This irrelevant art shouldn't be funded at a FEDERAL level.
>If California wants that kind of art, let their taxpayers fund it. If
>your communitiy wants to fund weird, cutting edge art, then fine, go
>ahead. Just don't expect EVERYONE in the country to pay for it. There
>are plenty of worthy, artistic things the federal government SHOULD be
>funding -- PBS, museums, encouraging the arts for young people. How
>you avoid funding the "irrelevant" stuff is beyond me, but a person has
>a right to be upset when they see it happen (and that doesn't make them
>resemble a Nazi).
This is a little ironic, isn't it, as PBS is a prime target of the
Conservatives? One problem here is that people are assuming that the
NEA funds "irrelevant" art, because they're simply not that interested
in or knowledgable about art. They've funded people like Mapplethorpe
and Karen Finley, who are very famous in the art world as
representatives of their chosen media. The problem is that people who
make great art often tend to think a lot, question things, and look at
the difficult issues in life. So to fund a great artist, you risk
funding someone who will come up with radical art pieces that often
shock people at first. If you only want to fund "safe" artists, you'll
get pretty uninspiring art.
>T.Herring
Julie Grob
--
Julie Grob
The Girl With the Most Cake
Chris 'Coz' Costello
Bruce A. Rothwell <baro...@cca.rockwell.com> wrote:
>> In article <D4u40...@midway.uchicago.edu>, cl...@quads.uchicago.edu (Chris 'Coz' Costello) writes:
>>
>> > Not exactly. Voters decided that they didn't care and didn't
>> > vote In November, allowing special interests and religious
>> > fanatics the opportunity to get people they liked in office.
>>
>> Not exactly. Some voters _didn't_ vote, some voters _did_.
>> What happened was more people that are conservative voted
>> than did liberals. That's the way the system works... it just
>> didn't work the way you wanted it to on this go around.
Well, that's what I said, isn't it? I think my point was about
voter apathy, which seems harder and harder to change. The
sniping was just for the fun of it.
>> > Now that they're in, they'll do whatever they can until they
>> > get voted out again.
>>
>> Again, this is the way the system works. Don't like it, get the
>> laws changed.
>>
Yeah, maybe I'll change the laws on my way home from work. You
make it sound so EASY. And, I'll admit, I'm really cynical about
effective change to government.
>> > ... The two-party system seems
>> > to be inefficient by design - it gets frightening for a bunch
>> > of people when one party or the other might actually DO something.
>>
>> The only thing that is "frightening" is that anyone would find it
>> frightening to be held to a higher standard of moral and social
>> decency, code of honor, and moral compass.
>>
Now wait a minute here, Bruce. I happen to have a very high standard
of all of these things. What makes you think that I don't? Just
because I think the government is inefficient? I don't understand
how this comment has anything to do with what I've said, unless
you're maiking a lot of really tenuous generalizations and logic
jumps. Taken at face value, this statement appears to support
censorship. I don't want to think you're that narrow-minded.
To tell you the truth, I'm just not sure what that comment meant.
I have a hunch I'm not going to like it.
PopTart
gee, de-lurk for a few weeks and miss all the fun.
anyhow, i'm involved with cross-campus coalition to educate my community
about the so-called contract with america and would very much like some
basic info about this coalition of artists in opposition to the cwa (no,
not cunts with attitude...tho' that's what i always think when i
abbreviate it ;)
see, i also maintain this anti-cwa web page for organizers
URL http://www.bgsu.edu/~ckile/coa.html
and would like to list info about this group.
Thanks. Replies to ck...@bgnet.bgsu.edu
(it's still me, just a different address...)
--
PopTart is ck...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu
Drop by the HomeToaster at http://www.bgsu.edu/~ckile/ckile.html
"It's perfectly obvious what Scooby snacks were: hash brownies."--Emily Way
Eric Adair
: Well, It's similar if you really want to stretch the point. I will agree
: though, that if the poster did say that his right to create art "includes
: a government grant", then he was totally off base. The gov't should subsidize
: his art, if it is deemed worthy (which opens up another can of worms. See
: below.), but he has no 'right' to it.
I don't see how this is stretching the point... The poster spoke of the
possibility of the removal of government funding for the arts, and then
said something along the lines of "we've got to stand up for our rights".
How would you interpret this? Nobody is attempting to ban art outright,
or to control art, or to do anything but stop funding it (Well, there are
probably christian fundamentalists all over the place who would be glad
to do all three, but there's not much chance of this happening). What
other right could this individual be talking about but the right to art
funding?
: Because gov't subsidy of art only costs me and you about 65 cents a year,
: while military spending runs us in the hundreds. I don't think that kicking
: in $.65 is going to break anyone. I wouldn't mind spending it on the military
: either if they'd keep some control on it. It's funny that all these people
: are screaming to control something that costs them pennies, while many
: more dollars just get flushed down that overpriced toilet and they don't
: seem to care. This doesn't even cover the saving and loans scam, and overly
: large gov't paychecks.
As I've said before, I don't want to pay a single cent for the federal
government to support the arts. I will support those arts which I feel
like supporting, and those I do not want to support, I will not.
A theft of $.65 is still theft. It is still wrong.
: Yes there would be, but a lot of good art would never be. I'd rather spend
: the 65 cents a year and have it.
Then do better than that. Either find, or create a non-profit
organization that supports the arts in the same manner that the NEA does.
Donate cash to it. I hereby pledge, if the NEA is abolished, and a
private non-profit organization takes its place, with the same operating
values, I'll give $25 to it. Much better than the $.65 a year I
contribute unwillingly today.
: Yeah. You're right. I was off base with that remark. But right now, the
: only elitist snobs I see getting together to vote on what good art is
: is the House Republicans. So what gives THEM the right to dictate to us,
: and why aren't YOU saying anything about them?
Because they're not dictating what is good art and what is not. When they
as a body legally declare certain specific art "unacceptable" or
"banned", I'll be the first one on the phone to my representative's office
to call him a fascist slimebag. But it's not happening. It might happen,
as politicians can be sneaky that way, but it's not a problem right now.
: Actually, even a lot of stuff done for commercial gain is art. Here you
: are defining art after telling me that I have no right to.
Well, yeah. You're right.
: There you go defining again. What gives YOU the right to decide what is art?
: And why is your definition right and mine wrong?
I should have said "IMHO" before that statement. I was refuting your
contention that I thought art was just another product, rather than
stating a fact.
: Not true at all. But 'high and mighty' art should be able to flourish with
: the lowbrow items, and just because our society caters to the, IMO, lowest
: common denominator, all other art shouldn't be driven out.
And this is where we differ. I do not think all other art is going to be
driven out. I think that all other art is going to continue almost
totally unchanged in the absence of the NEA. It looks like they're going
to do it, so fifty years down the road, if our society collapses for lack
of art, I'll admit you were right.
: Oh, give me a break. What is it with you guys? You can insult (parasites,
: elitist pig associates), but if someone else does the same back, you start
: crying big tears. Grow up!
Actually, I was responding to your insult. I read the whole thing before
I replied, you know. "Parasites" was more of a descriptive term than an
insult.
Eric Adair
Peter Cash
>
...
>And I disagree. Art is essential to the survival of the human race. Try
>to imagine a world without art. Now tell me that the human race could
>keep their sanity in a world like that, without that kind of expression
>and beauty. We communicate through art. We relate through art. We would be
>nothing without art.
Lofty sentiments indeed. I guess you go weak in the knees just thinking
about some guy soaking a crucifix in urine. But what ever gave you the idea
that we right-wing-neo-nazi-philistines want to do away with art? I resent
being made to pay for art with my taxes, I don't want to hunt down and kill
all the artists, for heaven's sake.
This kind of hysterical hyperbole is typical of the liberal reaction to any
conservative initiative: mention turning over the school lunch program
funds to the state instead of having the Federal Government administer
them, and the liberals howl that Newt Gingrich is invading schools and
ripping peanut butter and jelly sandiwches out of the hands of
kindergartners. Talk about cutting federal subsidies for artists who can't
cut it on the free market, and we're supposed to imagine a "world without
art". Cut it out, will you?
For your information, I subsidize artists every day--by buying books, CDs,
and videos that they've produced. That's the way that art should be
subsidized, not by government fiat.
...
>Why is it that the only real argument I hear from you people is that you
>are forced unwillingly to fund the arts, and therefore the arts should not
>be funded. We are also forced unwillingly to fund the military.
Well, I'll wager that the majority in this country still believes that
providing for the common defense is a good idea. If you don't think so, by
all means campaign for office on that platform. On the other hand, the
majority of the people who bothered to turn out to vote in the last
election felt that we've had enough of such folderol as crucifixes in
urine, and it's time it was stopped.
...
>No. Some government panel has decided that they're "worthy", which is
>different from good. But you're right here. Who is to decide what is
>worthy or what is good. It's a hard question to answer. Maybe we should
>have this panel elected by the public that they're representing, instead
>of having some biased politician appoint them.
Why not short-circuit the entire process, and let those people who like an
artist's work buy it, and those who don't not buy it? Too simple for you?
I suspect you believe that the idea of _force_ somehow figure into the
equation as indispensable. That's what government is about, you know:
force. Government can force people to do things that they don't want to do;
are you afraid that without force your favorite artistes are going to go
hungry?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |ca...@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Miriam Fried
> The merchandising of Sesame Street and Barney, combined made
> around $120 million dollars in the last couple of years.
> I think Barney and Big Bird can support me for awhile.
>
> Notice that it's the CORPORATION for public broadcasting.
>
> If the govt continues to take my money away to support crap
> muscians, that's less money I have to spend to support good
> muscians.
I'm not sure what "crap musicians" you're talking about. If you are
referring to Big Bird and Barney as "crap musicians" then you should know
that PBS costs you exactly 63 cents a year, which I doubt cramps your
music-buying power to the extent you claim. The only other "crap
musicians" funded in part by the gov't are chamber orchestras, opera
companies, and ballet companies, and somehow I doubt you mean those. The
gov't doesn't otherwise fund music.
Jeff Fried
> Oh yeah, social security + medicare + medicaid = about 50% of the
> anual budget, which is about 200 billion over what the government actually
> steals each year.
>
Social Security generates a surplus so it can't be considered a budget
item (in fact this surplus is used to pay off interest generated by
the national debt). Estimates of welfare depend on what's considered
welfare. If you consider government payouts to individuals (including
payouts on behalf of individuals such as subsidized housing) then
estimates of welfare run around 28% of the budget.
B.T.W, how come any discussions of welfare exclude corporate welfare
which presumably Newt and the gang won't cut.
-- Jeff.
Paul Schauble
ad...@lafn.org (ML Compton) wrote:
>
>Does the person manufacturing and selling widgets have to pay for the
>materials and time out of his own pockets? No.
Is this an example of ignorance as an art form? In most cases a
manufacturer does pay for materials and other manufacturing costs out of
her own pocket. And then recovers those costs by selling the result.
>You're statement shows
>your attitude about art. To you its just a product like any other. I
>contend that art is something that makes living in this world quite a
>bit easier. I can't say I've ever used a widget, but I use art everyday.
>
My washing machine makes living easier. That's why I bought it. So does my
collection of folk music recordings. That's why I bought them. I accept
your argument that your art needs oganized theft to survive. That puts in
on a moral plane I choose not to work on.
>>You people are not artists. You are parasites.
>
>It could be argued that all humans are parasites. But you, Sir, are a
>shallow idiot.
>
Well, I'll disagree with Eric just a bit. IMHO, they're bureaucrats.
Government employees on the government payroll. But not artists.
(Ob. folk music question: Can anyone give me the complete reference to the
song containing the line "The government dole will rot your soul"?
++PLS
Philip Dahl
: Social Security generates a surplus so it can't be considered a budget
: item (in fact this surplus is used to pay off interest generated by
: the national debt).
Social Security is a pyramid scheme, and if you are under 40 you
are one of the suckers. And if you're not pissed about it you're a fool.
umich.edu
This implies that only things which can make lots
of money deserve to exist. If it hadn't been for
public broadcasting, would we ever have the quality
of television brought to us by TLC, Discovery Channel,
etc.? Popular culture is, instead, dragging us toward
a day filled with noxious talk shows, vitriolic sitcoms,
and fear-enflaming "real-life" cop shows. Since
when is money the defining aspect of what is good
in the world? And if it is, should it be?
2)No matter how necessary may be the bombers
and endless military paraphanalia, nobody can
dispute that the military has misspent the largesse
with which we have endowed them over the
years. If eliminating just *one* bomber or helicopter
or hammer could fund the arts, why not do it?
This will not end military spending entirely, just cut
back on it a little.
3)There is, I believe, a place for many kinds of art
and many kinds of artist. Certainly the finger-painting
of a child is important. But how is that child to learn
that art can be even more important and varied
if she is denied access to other forms of it? And
who says that cutting-edge art is not as important
as popular art? I don't think that the universities
and museums should be the only places where money
is spent on art. Who then will bring art to the small
communities that cannot afford such things on their own?
Shall they be denied access to art because they
don't live in the right area of the country? Because
they can't travel to New York or Chicago to see
dance or music? A great deal of the money that
goes to artists is used by very small groups devoted to
bringing new or classical work to their own
communities.
Thanks for letting me spout.
NY
Myles na G
broadcasting system, and since its about the only place on the air that
you're going to hear music that isn't aimed at the mass market (which is
to say, the music addressed in most of the newsgroups you've posted to),
your comments seem ill-conceived.
Or to put it a little less delicately, if you think having another four
quarters to put into the jukebox will compensate for destroying the system
that makes classical, folk, ethnic, jazz, blues, r&b, and just about any
undiluted, fully felt and fully individualistic music available at the
flip of a dial, then congratulations, you've invented a new form of
idiocy.
You can lead a Libertarian to a cash register, but you can't make him
think...
Neal G. Gilbertson
Global warming: I'm all for it!
NG
Michael Gilley
> In article <3iule6$v...@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, fuc...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
> (FUCHS JESSE MICHAEL) wrote:
>
> > Just remember, military bands get much more funding than the NEA...why
> > is one okay art and the other isn't?
>
> It's because everyone wants to own several recordings of military bands
> playing hits like the "Colonel Bogie March," whereas nobody wants any of those
> stupid recordings of music from Wolf Trap, or those communistic videos like
> "Upstairs Downstairs" or "Tales of the City".
What survey poll did you get this information from? Those
stupid recordings of music from Wolf Trap and those communistic
videos like "Upstairs, Downstairs" and "Tales of Two Cities"
are by far the highest circulating materials of a medium-sized
library in the heart of the Appalachians.
>
> After all, it's not like you can get people to march in step by playing
> grunge or classical or metal or traditional blues or pop music. No, for
> marching, nothing but military bands will do, so we need to support several
> hundred of them just in case we should feel like going out marching one day.
>
> Steve
--
According to T. Michael Gilley:
T. Michael Gilley, Director PHONE: (703) 773-3018
Balero
: Christine Petersen (ott...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: : for information the numbers on this go: national outlays = 1.25 trillion
: : / 250 million people = $5000/person/year The national outlay for the
: : NEA is 64 cents per person. The share per person for the savings and loan
: : bailout that we've all forgotten about (what was it that month, ice
: : skaters, a long forgotten war? I don't remember; short term memory) is
: : approximately $200 billion / 250,000,000 people = $800 outlay / individual.
: : but, oops, the republicans caused that soooo, that's no fun to bring up.
: Well, it's not really pertinent to what's being discussed. I'm not saying
: "Cut only art funding", I'm saying "Cut just about everything, including
: art funding", and am arging with those who disagree with me on that.
: Art funding is only a tiny part of the mess that both the Republicans and
: the Democrats have gotten us into. But it's still part of the mess.
: Eric Adair
What is the use of arguing with this guy ? Eric was obviously
born with the right hemisphere of his brain missing. If he doesn't
understand the importance of art, a post 100000 miles long is not
going to help him.
But for those who see it from my perspective, here is a few more
points to consider:
1. Every civilization in history has been judged by their political
system, their social system, their ideas, their technology, and, last
but not least, their art.
Art holds the symbols of every culture. In art are the values,
the conflicts, the beliefs and belief systems, the perspective, and
the essence of a society. You cannot study a society and understand it
without becoming familiar with its art.
2. Art is spiritual. In it we find a sense of meaning, a sense of
being. It is a way of relating to the transcendental, a way of
coming to terms with our place as humans in a vast, complex,
unfathomable universe. We eat and find shelter to survive;
we tell stories, sing songs, and form mental images and realities
to exist as we have a capacity to do so given our extraordinary
human intelligence.
3. Art is expression. Human societies are organisms that function
together to create a reality. The glue the binds people together
to make a society is common values, beliefs, and shared symbols.
Symbols exist in ritual and ceremony and in art, among other things.
These things cannot be held in common without communication. Without
expression. Art is the highest form of expression. A human
society cannot function well without art.
-Balero
Hearing comes at birth but listening is an art learned over a lifetime.
Philip Dahl
: Art holds the symbols of every culture. In art are the values,
: the conflicts, the beliefs and belief systems, the perspective, and
: the essence of a society. You cannot study a society and understand it
: without becoming familiar with its art.
I've been reading these posts about how vital art is, and I agree
about that, but doesn't it follow that people will pay for it? Food is
vital too--don't people pay for that? Do you think the Federal Government
has such good taste?
Phil Dahl
lei...@painix.com
Eric Adair
: What is the use of arguing with this guy ? Eric was obviously
: born with the right hemisphere of his brain missing. If he doesn't
: understand the importance of art, a post 100000 miles long is not
: going to help him.
I think you're missing an important point here. "Doesn't want government
funding for <thing> != "Doesn't see importance of thing".
By this same token, you could say that since I don't think the government
should give everybody a job, I don't understand the importance of people
having jobs.
I think art is very, very important. I think that our society would
collapse in the absence of art. Nobody has yet given me a shred of
evidence that abolishment of federal art funding would destroy all art,
or cause the state of artistic expression in our society to decline in
any significant manner.
Do you have some information to offer along those lines? Or are you just
going to cop out and sling some more mud, apparently lacking a worthwile
argument?
Eric Adair
Gary Martin
Balero (ndg...@tamucc.edu) wrote:
The Federal Government spends far more money to subsidize food production
and distribution than it does on art. And lobbyists for agriculture
seem to have quickly, easily and relatively quietly gotten Republican
legislators from farm states to oppose cuts in food-related subsidies.
--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Mar...@cis.umassd.edu
Gary Martin
I think you're missing an important point here. "Doesn't want government
funding for <thing> != "Doesn't see importance of thing".
By this same token, you could say that since I don't think the government
should give everybody a job, I don't understand the importance of people
having jobs.
I think art is very, very important. I think that our society would
collapse in the absence of art. Nobody has yet given me a shred of
evidence that abolishment of federal art funding would destroy all art,
or cause the state of artistic expression in our society to decline in
any significant manner.
No, it wouldn't destroy all art - only that which isn't commercially
viable, but wouldn't it be terrible to lose even that?
Government funding is not designed to support the creation of art - it
supports the organizations that make it widely and affordably available
to the general public. It allows for free admission to national
museums. It allows museums in large and small cities around the country
to mount exhibits of art from around the world that local residents
would otherwise be unable to see without taking an expensive trip.
It allows public radio stations to broadcast traditional ethnic
music that would not be heard otherwise. It allows dance companies,
orchestras, opera companies, etc. to exist without charging completely
outrageous prices for tickets. (Of course Eric thinks that if you
can't afford to pay $150 for an opera ticket, you shouldn't be allowed
to go. He thinks opera shouldn't exist unless it can find enough
rich people to pay for it. And so what if there's no opera - that
would just be destroying _some_ art, not _all_ art.)
Eric Adair
: No, it wouldn't destroy all art - only that which isn't commercially
: viable, but wouldn't it be terrible to lose even that?
It would destroy only that non-commercial art which could not either be
created without government funding, or that which could not, under any
circumstances, gain any other type of funding... I think a very small
portion of the vast amount of non-commercial art out there would be lost.
: It allows public radio stations to broadcast traditional ethnic
: music that would not be heard otherwise. It allows dance companies,
: orchestras, opera companies, etc. to exist without charging completely
: outrageous prices for tickets. (Of course Eric thinks that if you
: can't afford to pay $150 for an opera ticket, you shouldn't be allowed
: to go. He thinks opera shouldn't exist unless it can find enough
: rich people to pay for it. And so what if there's no opera - that
: would just be destroying _some_ art, not _all_ art.)
Exactly! Art is necessary to the survival of our civilization. Subsidized
access to the art of others is by no means even remotely necessary to the
survival of our civilization. It's certainly enriching, and it's
certainly good for you, but you don't need it.
And if nobody wants to support opera, there should be no opera. If nobody
wants to by computers from IBM, should IBM be subsidized? If nobody wants
to watch Paramount movies, should Paramount be subsidized? Well? Paramont
is producing art. Commercial art, but art nonetheless. Should we, or
should we not subsidize Paramount in order to allow them to continue
making their movies if nobody wants to watch them?
I'd like to hear your answer on this. Explain why.
Eric Adair
Philip Dahl
: In article <3k0cbi$l...@panix.com> lei...@panix.com (Philip Dahl) writes:
: I've been reading these posts about how vital art is, and I agree
: about that, but doesn't it follow that people will pay for it? Food is
: vital too--don't people pay for that? Do you think the Federal Government
: has such good taste?
: The Federal Government spends far more money to subsidize food production
: and distribution than it does on art.
--for people who can't afford it. And Federal programs raise the
price of food for those of us who can, but that's another debate.
You don't answer the point that poeple will pay for good art--in
fact they do pay for the vast majority of it already. I believe they have
a much better idea what "good" art is than the Federal Government does.
Phil Dahl
lei...@panix.com
Sven L.L. Rafferty
>
>Gary Martin (mar...@vela.cis.umassd.edu) wrote:
>
>Exactly! Art is necessary to the survival of our civilization. Subsidized
i would love to see proof of that fact. sorry to say, most of the "art" that is funded is not
even "enjoyed" by 5% of the public, so i would have to say your statement holds no
water.
<><sven><>
--
get warped!! it's kinda like Windoze 95...just better and available now!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% sven lars loebler rafferty * "God is dead"--Nietzsche %
% po box 53151 *** %
% san jose, ca 95153-0151 * "Nietzshe is dead"--God %
% sv...@ix.netcom.com * %
% %
% <>< "we use quality fluids in our computers, <>< %
% that means we don't use microsoft software."--me %
% %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Christine Petersen
> In article <3jcvoc$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> you wrote:
>
> [something about 20% of the budget going for defense]
>
> look, the defense budget is just over 200 billion, the total budget is 1.96
> trillion. That is about 10% to 12%
>
> Joe Suber
>
No, those aren't the numbers. Here, from a Seattle Times graph titled
'Federal expenses if the 1994 budget were balanced' are numbers. This is
for if everything now were proportionally shrunk so expenses equaled income.
Social Security $317.7 billion 25.4%
Defense $280.6 22.5%
'Everything else$221.5 17.7%
Interest on debt$198.9 15.6%
Medicare $140.8 11.27%
Fed. Retirement $63 5%
Unemployment $26.7 2%
Total $1249 billion
Gary Martin
In <3k2rm2$9...@keystone.intergate.net> zel...@intergate.net (Eric Adair) writes:
>
>Gary Martin (mar...@vela.cis.umassd.edu) wrote:
>
>Exactly! Art is necessary to the survival of our civilization. Subsidized
You screwed up the quotes. I didn't write that. Eric Adair did.
Gary Martin
Gary Martin (mar...@vela.cis.umassd.edu) wrote:
: No, it wouldn't destroy all art - only that which isn't commercially
: viable, but wouldn't it be terrible to lose even that?
It would destroy only that non-commercial art which could not either be
created without government funding, or that which could not, under any
circumstances, gain any other type of funding... I think a very small
portion of the vast amount of non-commercial art out there would be lost.
Did it ever cross your mind that this "very small portion" might be
the last link to a traditional cultural heritage, and that by not
funding it NOW, we might lose the opportunity FOREVER? Consider
the throat singers of Tuva. Until a few years ago, this remarkable
music was practiced and heard only in this remote area in central
Asia and by a few fanatic professional and amateur musicologists.
Surely it was government grant money that allowed them to tour
North America for the first time. Now they are popular. They sell
out concert halls. They appear on national commercial TV. They
are financially successful. But if we had to rely on private money,
who in their right mind would have bet on this catching on in the US?
OK, I hear you cry, "you've just admitted that government funding is
insane!" The point is that the risk, $50,000?, $100,000?, is spread
over 250,000,000 people, not concentrated on 10 or 15 fanatical donors.
: It allows public radio stations to broadcast traditional ethnic
: music that would not be heard otherwise. It allows dance companies,
: orchestras, opera companies, etc. to exist without charging completely
: outrageous prices for tickets. (Of course Eric thinks that if you
: can't afford to pay $150 for an opera ticket, you shouldn't be allowed
: to go. He thinks opera shouldn't exist unless it can find enough
: rich people to pay for it. And so what if there's no opera - that
: would just be destroying _some_ art, not _all_ art.)
Exactly! Art is necessary to the survival of our civilization. Subsidized
access to the art of others is by no means even remotely necessary to the
survival of our civilization. It's certainly enriching, and it's
certainly good for you, but you don't need it.
And only the weathly deserve to be culturally enriched?
And if nobody wants to support opera, there should be no opera. If nobody
wants to by computers from IBM, should IBM be subsidized? If nobody wants
to watch Paramount movies, should Paramount be subsidized? Well? Paramont
is producing art. Commercial art, but art nonetheless. Should we, or
should we not subsidize Paramount in order to allow them to continue
making their movies if nobody wants to watch them?
If it were discovered that school kids learn much better if they have
access to IBM computers and Paramount movies, then _all_ kids should
have _equal_ access to them, even if it means that the federal government
has to buy these items from IBM and Paramount. To limit access to those
whose parents can afford it will just perpetuate and deepen the gap
between the haves and the have-nots.
Gary Martin
People who can afford it will pay for good art that they already know
about. Government funding, if it's working properly, should provide
access to art for those who can't afford to pay for it, and should
allow experts (museum curators, art historians, musicologists, folklorists,
etc.) to present lesser-known art to the public. When and if the
moneyed public likes it, THEN they will support it.
Edie Gale Hays
: Jeff Fried (fr...@serval.networx.com) wrote:
Yes it's a pyramid scheme and I've been paying into it for twenty years
and never expect to see a penny of it in my own behalf when I need it, but
meanwhile it supported my grandparents (who contributed almost nothing to
it) and it is supporting my parents who contributed a lot into it, but
nowhere NEAR what they are getting back from it. The way I see it is: I
can pay my social security and not complain, OR I can support my parents
out of my own pocket. It's gonna cost me either way.
Edie
john....@trinity.dircon.co.uk
> Government-funded art results in way too much irrelevant art.
> I mean stuff that is relevant only to a few and not the
> general public. So the few should fund it, not the general public.
Seems to me like a bit of a red herring. If you want to put funding of the
arts into a historical context, much of it was done by wealthy benefactors and
monarchs of a sort that don't exist any more. Haven't seen too many
indications that the great works of art - music, sculpture, painting, etc., -
were funded by the masses. For most of history, the masses were too busy
trying to survive.
John.
Philip Dahl
: People who can afford it will pay for good art that they already know
: about.
I love turning my friends on to good art they haven't seen, and
getting the same in return. When I like it I pay for more. I've never
been willing to try something new just because it was government-sponsored.
: Government funding, if it's working properly, should provide
: access to art for those who can't afford to pay for it
'People who can't afford it' are generally the source of new art
and new art forms. What they need is strong copyright protection!
I guess the main thing I have to say is *relax*. Art, like
commerce and crabgrass, arises all by itself.
Phil Dahl
lei...@panix.com
Philip Dahl
: and it is supporting my parents who contributed a lot into it, but
: nowhere NEAR what they are getting back from it.
In general, their generation is getting more than they put in,
but not as much more than earlier generations. I believe it takes five
years of retirement now to get back the present value of what you put
in.
: The way I see it is: I
: can pay my social security and not complain, OR I can support my parents
: out of my own pocket. It's gonna cost me either way.
And who supports your retirement?
Phil Dahl
lei...@panix.com
Gary Martin
So if it is so 'damn good' why should someone who disagrees with it being
so 'damn good' have to foot the bill?
Because the alternative is to give every taxpayer a line-item veto over
every item in the Federal budget, the State budget, the County budget,
and the Municipal budget. This is known as anarchy.
Very simple.
Bingo!
Eric Adair
: If it were discovered that school kids learn much better if they have
: access to IBM computers and Paramount movies, then _all_ kids should
: have _equal_ access to them, even if it means that the federal government
: has to buy these items from IBM and Paramount. To limit access to those
: whose parents can afford it will just perpetuate and deepen the gap
: between the haves and the have-nots.
Then we have an absolute fundamental philosophical difference, and no
amount of discussion, debate, or argument is going to produce anything
remotely resembling agreement between us. You are a collectivist and a
socialist in the purest sense, and I am most certainly not. We might as
well be speaking different languages for all the good further discussion
is going to do us, anyone following this issue, or the issue itself.
I've enjoyed arguing this, but it seems every argument always comes down
to this one point, and it's not one that we're going to change any minds on.
Eric Adair
Yet Another Steve
> In <3k530t$r...@shemesh.tis.com>, t...@tis.com (Tom Swiss) writes:
> >ca...@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
> >>
> >>Lofty sentiments indeed. I guess you go weak in the knees just thinking
> >>about some guy soaking a crucifix in urine.
> >
> > Ya know, I wonder how many of the people who go on about this ever saw
> >the piece in question? I saw "Piss Christ" printed in a magazine somewhere,
> >and IMHO it was damn good art that challenges preconceptions about the
>
> So if it is so 'damn good' why should someone who disagrees with it being
> so 'damn good' have to foot the bill?
>
> Very simple.
For the same reason that I have to pay a part of Jesse Helms' salary,
utterly repugnant as I find this. As Mr. Martin points out, individual
taxpayers do not have line-item vetoes. Which I suspect is a good thing,
in the long run.
Steve
David Rowland
>So if it is so 'damn good' why should someone who disagrees with it being
>so 'damn good' have to foot the bill?
>Very simple.
>******************************************************************
>Tom Honles
>EMail: t...@manta.dwp.la.ca.us OR t...@f945.n102.z1.fidonet.org
>******************************************************************
I disagree with the way the military allocates its budget. Why
should I have to foot their bill? Maybe I should just patronize my own
private army.
Come to think of it...I didn't vote for anybody in Congress at the
moment. Nor do I agree with most of the legislation the present Congress is
planning to pass. In fact, I 'disagree' with most of the things the
government has done in the last few years. I'd like my bill itemized,
damnit! I'm not gonna pay for something I don't like!
You're right, it is simple.
Dave
Philip Dahl
: Gary Martin (mar...@fornax.cis.umassd.edu) wrote:
: : To limit access to those
: : whose parents can afford it will just perpetuate and deepen the gap
: : between the haves and the have-nots.
: Then we have an absolute fundamental philosophical difference, and no
: amount of discussion, debate, or argument is going to produce anything
: remotely resembling agreement between us. You are a collectivist and a
: socialist in the purest sense, and I am most certainly not.
: I've enjoyed arguing this, but it seems every argument always comes down
: to this one point, and it's not one that we're going to change any minds on.
Your position is more than a matter of faith, Eric. They did an
experiment. They cut a modern Western country down the middle, then tried
capitalism and democracy on one side and an autocratic collectivist system
on the other. Guess what? They had to build a wall to keep people in the
the second part! Eventually it collapsed completely. You are right!
Phil Dahl
lei...@panix.com
Erich Franz Stocker
> Your position is more than a matter of faith, Eric. They did an
>experiment. They cut a modern Western country down the middle, then tried
>capitalism and democracy on one side and an autocratic collectivist system
>on the other. Guess what? They had to build a wall to keep people in the
>the second part! Eventually it collapsed completely. You are right!
>
>Phil Dahl
This is a very simplistic response. Generally, the mistake made is that
capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. On a whole that is bunk.
Capitalism
is an economic system in which there is the belief that government's whole
job is ensuring that capitalists get return on their investment and that
labor
is held in check to ensure such returns. It also guarantees a welfare
program
for the capital holder ala bank bailouts, guarantee of loans for car
companies,
etc.
Democracy is not tied to any particular economic system. It can exist in
any economic system in which the people are involved.
From an arts standpoint, governmental support of the arts is no different
than governmental support of defense. The issue comes down as to whether
the people want to do this or not. Please notice that I didn't say
whether
the NEWT or is that NUKE wants it or not.
I believe the issue here has been to determine whether the current
congress
and its "hit list" approach to determining the role of the federal vs
state and
local governments vs industry is representative of the majority of
Americans.
Or whether a rightwing minority has been put in control by general
indifference
and total disgust of all politicians right, left and center.
I believe that is a valid point of discussion and doesn't represent any
fundamental
basis for determining someone's economic beliefs.
*******************************************
* Erich Franz Stocker *
*******************************************
Jason and the tiny curly girl
: Your position is more than a matter of faith, Eric. They did an
: experiment. They cut a modern Western country down the middle, then tried
: capitalism and democracy on one side and an autocratic collectivist system
: on the other. Guess what? They had to build a wall to keep people in the
: the second part! Eventually it collapsed completely. You are right!
Kind of an odd comment considering that Germany is much more regulated
and "socialistic" than the US.
How about we try this:
They had a country where a small percentage of the population had control
of all the money and resources. The others were left to fend for
themselves and lived in squalor.
Now Nelson Mandela runs the place.
Of course this usenet where the only allowed positions are the extremes,
so I couldn't suggest that you can have capitalism and democracy and
still not twitch uncontrollably at the suggestion poor kids deserve some
help.
jason
--
Jason & Jill Greshes-Philadelphia,PA-jg...@netaxs.com-jgreshes@dfw.net
roxy music list: e-mail avalon-...@dfw.net w/ message subscribe avalon
echo&bmen list: e-mail seven-sea...@dfw.net w/ subscribe seven-seas
echo www page: http://www.netaxs.com/~jgreshes/echo.html
Brad Clawsie
> And who supports your retirement?
Try these terms on for size: 401(k), RRSP, Mutual Funds.
That's your retirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Clawsie finger for PGP key
claw...@qucis.queensu.ca
http://www.qucis.queensu.ca:1999/~clawsieb/info.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Dahl
: Generally, the mistake made is that
: capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. On a whole that is bunk.
The people of China will be sorry to hear that--they're counting
on Capitalism to pull Democracy into their country.
: Capitalism
: is an economic system in which there is the belief that government's whole
: job is ensuring that capitalists get return on their investment and that
: labor
: is held in check to ensure such returns. It also guarantees a welfare
: program
: for the capital holder ala bank bailouts, guarantee of loans for car
: companies,
: etc.
Not that I doubt your scholarship, but could you maybe cite a
source for this definition? You didn't get it from that guy in the ads
for Sheik condoms, did you? :>
Phil Dahl
lei...@panix.com
Jeff Fried
: Your position is more than a matter of faith, Eric. They did an
: experiment. They cut a modern Western country down the middle, then tried
: capitalism and democracy on one side and an autocratic collectivist system
: on the other. Guess what? They had to build a wall to keep people in the
: the second part! Eventually it collapsed completely. You are right!
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!
First of all, an "autocratic collectivist system" is an impossibility.
Autocratic means one person or group has control; collectivist is
control by all the people; ie. socialism.
Second, the communist states were neither collectivist nor Marxist.
They were autocratic beaurocracies. The essence of Marxism is the
maxim "To each according to his need, from each according to his
ability". No one can deny that the needs of most people in communist
states were not met.
-- Jeff.
"If I had enough money, I'd be a Republican!"