Heres a dumb question about 2 adams

[paulr]

I just checked out the link QT posted ... it does look like the grant was given through the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art.

The "discussion questions" at the bottom of the page do a nice job of putting the whole witch hunt into perspective.

[Paul Butzi]

It's all such petty whining, though. The total amount of money we're talking about is so laughably small.

My observation is that in general, it's pretty easy to say it's laughably small when it's someone else's money, but it's less easy when it's your money.

That's the difference. When I see an artistic enterprise I feel needs support, I get out my checkbook and write a check. When you see an artistic enterprise you feel needs support, you seek to get out someone else's checkbook and write a check., and then tell them it was for a really trivial amount.

So just send me your checkbook. I have more experience with money, more education about it than you do. I'm sure you'd want it to be spent by the elite that really knows what they're doing, and that would be me.

I assure you, from my perspective, the amount of money in your checking account is laughably small. So send me the checkbook, and no petty whining. This would be elitism in the best possible sense of the word.

[tim atherton]

come on Paul, tell us again - what aspects of government spending and funding do you have a direct say in?

[John_4185]

Serrano got NEA funding. I am not a Christian, yet I find that piece work very offensive, regardless of its artistic merits.

Doesn't anyone find it at least strange that there are the religious who celebrate their passion with a statue of a hanging, naked, bloody, tortured corpse in plain sight in their home? Some of these are the same people who would censor photographs of the flag-draped coffins of persons who died for their country because the images are overbearing. WTF is really going on here?

[tim atherton]

psychosis? neurosis? hypocracy? - take your pick

[Paul Butzi]

come on Paul, tell us again - what aspects of government spending and funding do you have a direct say in?

It's not really a matter of direct say, is it?

Note that in response to Frank's assertion that 70% would be offended by some of the art funded by the NEA, Kerik [for whom I otherwise have a great deal of respect] wrote: And the only "artist" that most of those 70% have ever heard of is likely Thomas Kincaide or Anne Geddes.

Got it? The opinions of those 70% don't count. Why? Because, unlike Kerik, they're the hoi polloi.

Let's suppose you're opposed to the Iraq war, and you're a citizen of the US. I have no idea how correct either of those assumptions is, but let me run with it.

Ok, now, you're opposed to having your taxes spent on the war. You stand up and decry this situation. And someone else stands up and says "Hey, Tim. You're just a common guy. I have a DEGREE in legitimacy of war, and I assure you this is a good war. So sit down, shut up, and fork over your damn money. Because, after all, in the scheme of things it's a laughably small amount".

Feel good about that? Neither do I, and I actually both am a US citizen and support the war.

[tim atherton]

""Hey,
Tim. You're just a common guy. I have a DEGREE in legitimacy of war,
and I assure you this is a good war. So sit down, shut up, and fork over
your damn money. Because, after all, in the scheme of things it's a
laughably small amount"."

which describes precisely the reality of the situation and exactly how things work in practice

"Note that in response to Frank's assertion that 70% would be offended by some of the art funded by the NEA, Kerik [for whom I otherwise have a great deal of respect] wrote: And the only "artist" that most of those 70% have ever heard of is likely Thomas Kincaide or Anne Geddes.

Got it? The opinions of those 70% don't count. Why? Because, unlike Kerik, they're the hoi polloi."

because this assumes the only, or at least the main basis or criteria for making such decisions about NEA grants would be "taste" - for which, of course, everyone is qualified - "it is or isn't to my taste" and it also assumes that the only valid understanding of art is a naive one i.e. an uneducated one.

As I said before, why should scientific grants, for example, be determined by a committee or jury educated and qualified in that particular area of science and NEA grants be left to the lowest common denominator decisions of the hoi polloi

[paulr]

And a point that's getting lost is that the representatives making decisions on our behalf SHOULD be making the on our behalf. If there is an overriding feeling that they aren't, then people get mad, and protest, which is a part of the democratic process also. Since no decisions are universally popular, there's usually someone protesting something.

This doesn't change the expectation that because the representatives are presumeably an elite in their fields (foreign policy professionals making foreign policy decisions, art professionals making art decisions) we expect them to make better decisions on our behalf than we would ourelves. If this weren't the case we'd be operating like ancient Greece, with every citizen voting on every law. Get me away from that room!

You can argue all day long that it's arrogant for someone to presume to know what you need better than you do. But that is always the nature of representative democracy. And don't forget that the people making decisions have a hard job to do. The possibility of pleasing everybody, even of pleasing every mainstream group, is about zero. So you make choices. Some might say it's their duty to always make the populist, lowest-common-denominator choice, espceially in cultural matters, but I'm glad they don't. I don't think that actually serves anyone in the end. Unless attempting to confirm what the majority already knows is somehow a service.

[Frank Petronio]

I think the real issue that Paul and Tim are bantering about comes down to the fact that once the government starts a program, they never, ever cut it or evaluate it. Since the NEA was started during LBJ's great society, it has been one of the few programs to be criticized (while Medicare and Social Security are much larger issues).

Of course the same goes for military programs. Isn't it odd that the US Army, Navy, and Air Force each get 33% of the military budget (plus or minus 1%)? Doesn't that defy any logical strategic planning and really come down to political jockeying for MY TAX MONEY?

The answer of course is to have a purge, kill all the politicians and elites, and eliminate all government spending. Then start up with only the essentials as they are needed, not as they mandated.

[Frank Petronio]

Umm, to all my friends at the FBW, that was an ironic joke.