Why do our taxes pay for art?
DVH
1) Funding is a form of welfare trampoline for beginner artists, ensuring
the best have time to develop artistically and acclimatise to the realities
of the art market before they start earning a living from their work.
2) Galleries represent weapons in the campaign to slow the flight of
residents from city centres. No self-respecting town is without a public
gallery. Urban development is "culture-led".
3) Art soothes the savage breast, and is an intangible social good.
4) An arts mafia has hijacked central government and lottery spending, and
now distributes it so that their own perverse idea of art can be forced on
the public.
5) Most art today is covert left-wing propaganda, perpetrated by the
products of an extraordinarily biased academy. Its sole political message is
that conservatism is evil.
The catholic church was once the main sponsor of the arts, but it too
charged a tax. What we see is merely a continuation of that patronage,
except that today it doesn't seem to be resulting in masterpieces. For every
ten artists who crap on a gallery floor, should we expect one
middling-to-good artist? What's the return on investment as a long term
aggregate?
Ariadne
DVH wrote:
It's frightening how things are changing. We used to have largely free
university education in order to call ourselves civilised. Now
everyone has to be a graduate and most degrees have no value but have
to be paid for by the student. There used to be great plays helped on
by a small subsidy. Now we have "street theatre".
I feel like Methusaleh but looking over a Clockwork Orange wasteland.
Nobody paid me for this.
Wink Nightingale
DVH wrote:
> 4) An arts mafia has hijacked central government and lottery spending,
That's the whole reason right there; The arts mafia, also known as
homosexuals.
DVH
"Ariadne" <ariad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166224536.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
You wouldn't be looking back with rose-tinted specs, Ari? I mean, kids these
days enjoy stuff we'd probably both agree is rubbish. But if we were their
age, would we not enjoy it too? Going through that stage is all part of the
great adventure, perhaps...
Ariadne
DVH wrote:
I was wearing my pink shades today...
joseph....@virgin.net
> Some possible reasons:
>
> 1) Funding is a form of welfare trampoline for beginner artists, ensuring
> the best have time to develop artistically and acclimatise to the realities
> of the art market before they start earning a living from their work.
Indeed, and see my final para. It's also worth remembering that most
of the UK's rock stars got their chance because they were faffing
around at art college rather than working for a living.
> 2) Galleries represent weapons in the campaign to slow the flight of
> residents from city centres. No self-respecting town is without a public
> gallery. Urban development is "culture-led".
Yebbut most visitors to galleries are 'outsiders' just up in town for
the day.
> 3) Art soothes the savage breast, and is an intangible social good.
Fair point.
> 4) An arts mafia has hijacked central government and lottery spending, and
> now distributes it so that their own perverse idea of art can be forced on
> the public.
>
> 5) Most art today is covert left-wing propaganda, perpetrated by the
> products of an extraordinarily biased academy. Its sole political message is
> that conservatism is evil.
I think the message is that 'the establishment is evil', until the
artists concerned become part of the establishment. But t'was ever
thus.
> The catholic church was once the main sponsor of the arts, but it too
> charged a tax. What we see is merely a continuation of that patronage,
> except that today it doesn't seem to be resulting in masterpieces. For every
> ten artists who crap on a gallery floor, should we expect one
> middling-to-good artist? What's the return on investment as a long term
> aggregate?
Dunno, but maybe there could be case for a special hypothecated 'arts
tax' on those artists who have become rich after getting their first
commission(s) via public sector funding.
joseph....@virgin.net
> "Ariadne" <ariad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166224536.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> > It's frightening how things are changing. We used to have largely free
> > university education in order to call ourselves civilised.
Really? I thought the purpose of a university education was to allow
me to indulge myself in various illicit ways.
> > Now
> > everyone has to be a graduate and most degrees have no value but have
> > to be paid for by the student. There used to be great plays helped on
> > by a small subsidy. Now we have "street theatre".
> >
> > I feel like Methusaleh but looking over a Clockwork Orange wasteland.
> >
> > Nobody paid me for this.
> >
>
> You wouldn't be looking back with rose-tinted specs, Ari? I mean, kids these
> days enjoy stuff we'd probably both agree is rubbish. But if we were their
> age, would we not enjoy it too? Going through that stage is all part of the
> great adventure, perhaps...
I think the problems began with the invention of photography and the
slow demise of representational art. Once painitings no longer needed
to 'look like' something, all bets were off as to what constituted
'good art'. Nowt to do with age IMO; my daughter has always held the
view that all abstract art is rubbish, whereas those of my
contemporaries who are arts-minded can even find worth in Tracey Emin's
output. Personally I don't know much about art, as I have a largely
verbal rather than visual 'take' on things
DVH
<joseph....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1166264375.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> DVH wrote:
>
>> "Ariadne" <ariad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166224536.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>> > It's frightening how things are changing. We used to have largely free
>> > university education in order to call ourselves civilised.
>
> Really? I thought the purpose of a university education was to allow
> me to indulge myself in various illicit ways.
>
>> > Now
>> > everyone has to be a graduate and most degrees have no value but have
>> > to be paid for by the student. There used to be great plays helped on
>> > by a small subsidy. Now we have "street theatre".
>> >
>> > I feel like Methusaleh but looking over a Clockwork Orange wasteland.
>> >
>> > Nobody paid me for this.
>> >
>>
>> You wouldn't be looking back with rose-tinted specs, Ari? I mean, kids
>> these
>> days enjoy stuff we'd probably both agree is rubbish. But if we were
>> their
>> age, would we not enjoy it too? Going through that stage is all part of
>> the
>> great adventure, perhaps...
>
> I think the problems began with the invention of photography and the
> slow demise of representational art.
Photography *is* representational. How are you connecting the introduction
of a super-representational art with the decline of representational art in
general?
> Once painitings no longer needed
> to 'look like' something, all bets were off as to what constituted
> 'good art'.
Your measure of the quality of art is that it looks like something?
Presumably then, you value sculpture over painting, since a painting of a
windmill looks considerably less like a windmill than a sculpture of a
windmill. The painting is flat, after all, and most windmills aren't flat.
> Nowt to do with age IMO; my daughter has always held the
> view that all abstract art is rubbish,
I hope you point out to her that all art is abstract? Cats are aware of
this - they don't rush towards the television when it shows an advert for
Kit-e-Kat. Presumably your daughter is more aware than a cat....
> whereas those of my
> contemporaries who are arts-minded
No idea what arts-minded means.
> can even find worth in Tracey Emin's
> output. Personally I don't know much about art, as I have a largely
> verbal rather than visual 'take' on things
What a cop-out! Don't you use your eyes to see words on a page? How does
this differ from using your eyes to look at a painting?
Ariadne
DVH wrote:
I love this painting:
and this one:
Post-photography but not subsided by our taxes...
hmp...@hotmail.com
> tax' on those artists who have become rich after getting their first
> commission(s) via public sector funding.
If their LA postman delivers your tax bill aye..
Of course you could build a wall around the country and not let people
whom you've spent a fortune improving leave the country.. Not sure if
that's been tried before?..
--
Paris. Not the City
Mark, Devon
Most young people these days provide better examples of how to behave
than the older generation. Most young people are far more
environmentally-conscious than most middle-aged/older people. Also they
are harder working (for instance doing their GCSEs compared with O
levels, tis gives them a good start). They are more communicative, yes
there are some exceptions, but generally they are more comfortable when
expressing themselves than many older people. They are articulate in
many ways too. Generally older people have a lot to learn from the
young. It's about time middle-aged people and older people stopped a
while and started to appreciate the pressures yound people are often
under, often far greater pressures than they were under as kids.
Prattling on about 'youngsters today' is a trap the human race is
persistently in danger of falling into. Youngers today are equally in
danger of falling into it when they become older - BEWARE, it's an easy
and very lazy blind trap to fall into.
DVH
Interesting. I was unaware of his stuff. Bit like Bacon, do you think?
Ariadne
DVH wrote:
> Ariadne wrote in message
> >
> > I love this painting:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ylupxn
> >
> > and this one:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ylll4x
> >
> > Post-photography but not subsided by our taxes...
> >
>
> Interesting. I was unaware of his stuff. Bit like Bacon, do you think?
Now that you mention it...
I had never thought it but I love Bacon's Pope though not his agonised
other things.
Much heavier though equally smooth effect.
joseph....@virgin.net
> <joseph....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1166264375.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > DVH wrote:
[..]
> >> You wouldn't be looking back with rose-tinted specs, Ari? I mean, kids
> >> these
> >> days enjoy stuff we'd probably both agree is rubbish. But if we were
> >> their
> >> age, would we not enjoy it too? Going through that stage is all part of
> >> the
> >> great adventure, perhaps...
> >
> > I think the problems began with the invention of photography and the
> > slow demise of representational art.
>
> Photography *is* representational. How are you connecting the introduction
> of a super-representational art with the decline of representational art in
> general?
Absract non-represententional art in the West coincides very neatly
with the introduction of photography. Surely not a coincidence?
> > Once painitings no longer needed
> > to 'look like' something, all bets were off as to what constituted
> > 'good art'.
>
> Your measure of the quality of art is that it looks like something?
> Presumably then, you value sculpture over painting, since a painting of a
> windmill looks considerably less like a windmill than a sculpture of a
> windmill. The painting is flat, after all, and most windmills aren't flat.
>
> > Nowt to do with age IMO; my daughter has always held the
> > view that all abstract art is rubbish,
>
> I hope you point out to her that all art is abstract? Cats are aware of
> this - they don't rush towards the television when it shows an advert for
> Kit-e-Kat. Presumably your daughter is more aware than a cat....
Cats can't see two-dimensional pictures and thus cannot enjoy any sort
of art, abstract or otherwise.
> > whereas those of my
> > contemporaries who are arts-minded
>
> No idea what arts-minded means.
Having studied art; being able to draw and paint. Keeping up to date
with developments in art.
> > can even find worth in Tracey Emin's
> > output. Personally I don't know much about art, as I have a largely
> > verbal rather than visual 'take' on things
>
> What a cop-out! Don't you use your eyes to see words on a page? How does
> this differ from using your eyes to look at a painting?
The most obvious exemplar of what I mean is that I can work, study
whatever in any room however well or badly decorated. Those more 'in
tune' with visual stimluae find difficulty functioning if the decor is
not to their taste. All I'm really able to say about a painting in
pictoral terms is that I like it or I don't like it; I'm not in tune
with the shape and forms and patterns that art critics talk about,
though I can blab on about the 'historical' elements of painting.
DVH
<joseph....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1166306596.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> DVH wrote:
>
>> <joseph....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1166264375.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> > DVH wrote:
> [..]
>> >> You wouldn't be looking back with rose-tinted specs, Ari? I mean, kids
>> >> these
>> >> days enjoy stuff we'd probably both agree is rubbish. But if we were
>> >> their
>> >> age, would we not enjoy it too? Going through that stage is all part
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> great adventure, perhaps...
>> >
>> > I think the problems began with the invention of photography and the
>> > slow demise of representational art.
>>
>> Photography *is* representational. How are you connecting the
>> introduction
>> of a super-representational art with the decline of representational art
>> in
>> general?
>
> Absract non-represententional art in the West coincides very neatly
> with the introduction of photography. Surely not a coincidence?
Not so. Daguerro invented his process in the 1830s; it was "perfected" by
the 1850s.
Meanwhile, have a look at this which is from about 1810:
http://www.wga.hu/art/t/turner/1/105turne.jpg
It prefigures pure abstraction by a hundred years, and daguerrotypes by
about thirty years. How do you explain it?
Also if photography was common by 1850, why were the pre-Raphaelites still
"competing" with its realism thirty years later?
In passing, can we distinguish between the terms representational and
figurative, please. Everything's representational, but not everything's
figurative. I guess we're talking mostly about figurative (realistic) and
non-figurative (abstract) art.
>
>> > Once painitings no longer needed
>> > to 'look like' something, all bets were off as to what constituted
>> > 'good art'.
>>
>> Your measure of the quality of art is that it looks like something?
>> Presumably then, you value sculpture over painting, since a painting of a
>> windmill looks considerably less like a windmill than a sculpture of a
>> windmill. The painting is flat, after all, and most windmills aren't
>> flat.
>>
>> > Nowt to do with age IMO; my daughter has always held the
>> > view that all abstract art is rubbish,
>>
>> I hope you point out to her that all art is abstract? Cats are aware of
>> this - they don't rush towards the television when it shows an advert for
>> Kit-e-Kat. Presumably your daughter is more aware than a cat....
>
> Cats can't see two-dimensional pictures and thus cannot enjoy any sort
> of art, abstract or otherwise.
A wild claim! Of course they can see two-dimensional pictures, but I take it
you mean something else...
>
>> > whereas those of my
>> > contemporaries who are arts-minded
>>
>> No idea what arts-minded means.
>
> Having studied art; being able to draw and paint. Keeping up to date
> with developments in art.
OK.
>
>> > can even find worth in Tracey Emin's
>> > output. Personally I don't know much about art, as I have a largely
>> > verbal rather than visual 'take' on things
>>
>> What a cop-out! Don't you use your eyes to see words on a page? How does
>> this differ from using your eyes to look at a painting?
>
> The most obvious exemplar of what I mean is that I can work, study
> whatever in any room however well or badly decorated. Those more 'in
> tune' with visual stimluae find difficulty functioning if the decor is
> not to their taste.
You may simply not be aware of your own response to ugly or attractive
surroundings. I don't think psychologists have studied the effects of
peoples' environments enough - if they had, some architects would have been
jailed. You might be less productive, happy or attentive in a badly
decorated room, though you might also be unaware of it.
> All I'm really able to say about a painting in
> pictoral terms is that I like it or I don't like it; I'm not in tune
> with the shape and forms and patterns that art critics talk about,
> though I can blab on about the 'historical' elements of painting.
Well that's interesting enough.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
In 'the good old days' university education was elitist, and applied
only to the top 5%-10% ie the academically gifted. Now anyone who can
(almost) spell their name can go. That's why they have to pay for what
is largely a worthless degree.
Maybe we should once again provide full grants for the top 5%, and the
rest of the wannabees can go if they pay.
--
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4
http://www.resonancefm.com
Wink Nightingale
other low grade jobs
that the lower 90% used to do. These days the service jobs that there
are demand some sort of paper to qualify candidates, worthless only if
there are no jobs, but if there are
They have worth because they generate income and tax revenue.
> Maybe we should once again provide full grants for the top 5%, and the
> rest of the wannabees can go if they pay.
Playing devil's advocate, from what I understand, the academically
gifted are less likely to go into the hard sciences, as these research
type jobs they might have qualified for with a degree in semi-conductor
physics for instance also are now being off shored too. So what options
does that leave them short of emigrating to india or china Where's the
value in providing grants under these contemporary circumstances?