Heres a dumb question about 2 adams

[John_4185]

Out of everything I paid in taxes last year, maybe a buck or two went to the arts. This can be compared to the number of weeks I had to work to fund the war.

We aren't paying for the war by the installment method. We will probably not pay off 'our share' in our lifetime.

"A question that hasn't been asked is, what's the solution to the Seranno issue?

There is no issue. The sun doesn't shine every day. It is unwise to even attempt to arrouse the population the same degree of enthusiasm as they experience when disappointed; that's Hollywood's job, and you see what kind of 'Art' they produce.

Well, primarily it's obvious because there was once a time where there was no funding of art with tax dollars, and (wait for it....) ART STILL GOT MADE BY ARTISTS!

When was that? Certainly not during the Renaissance, nor the period of Greece and Rome, nor earlier in the 10,000 year Ancient Egyption civilization - those periods of craftsmanship that endure for reasons we can discuss.

That's why I work so hard to raise private funding for the arts.

Good idea, but of course the high-profile endowments have their own social elite, don't they? I don't mean that in a bad way.

[tim atherton]

"Well, primarily it's obvious because there was once a time where there was no funding of art with tax dollars, and (wait for it....) ART STILL GOT MADE BY ARTISTS! "

you mean like Mozart?

[Paul Butzi]

One of the problems with the arts is that they're expensive. Not just the making of art, but the producing, archiving, performing, and displaying of it. This is why the enjoyment of the arts has traditionally been the province of the rich. The idea of state funding for the arts is to make them available to more people--to make them LESS elite.

Well, it would be nice if this actually were the case. But it seems that, somehow, taking tax dollars from a farmer in Missouri doesn't much end up making it possible for him to attend a play.

Partly because the amount is as small as it is, the price to go see a symphony orchestra, or a play in a regional theater, or even to get into the museum of modern art (on all but cattle-herd free fridays, when you're lucky to get in at all), is more than what many people feel they can pay. More funding would open doors to more people. Cut funding would mainly serve to keep the arts elite.

Yep. State funding for the arts is typically a very small percentage (e.g. less than 5%) of an organization's budget. In the end, the current tax dollars that go to arts support do little to make the price of a ticket lower.

All of the heavy lifting of funding the arts is done by those evil corporations, and (gasp) by private donations from individuals and private foundations.

So you have to look at the flip side - when you use tax dollars to fund art which offends the majority of the people paying the taxes, you're driving a wedge between the art world and the rest of the population. You're reinforcing that artists are a bunch of solipsistic wankers who spend their time deriding their most closely held belief by doing things like smearing dung on a depiction of the Virgin Mary, or by photographing a crucifix immersed in urine, or a bull whip inserted in a man's rectum.

And when that happens, you make it nearly impossible to even get the person to WANT to go the theater, or the symphony, or the art museum. They think they don't need to go, because it's Art, and to them, you've made it clear that Art is insulting, degrading, confrontational, outrageous - and they're just not interested.

And I won't even get started on trying to tell you how hard it is to get someone who doesn't want to go the the theater, or the symphony, or the art musueum to cough up money to support it - without using the government coercion of taxation.

Sure, tax funded support of the arts puts money in the coffers of arts organizations and in the pockets of artists.

But it's not enough to keep the arts going, it never, ever will be enough to keep the arts going, and the fact that the funding was coerced through taxation poisons the dialog between the arts and the community, and once you've done that, what was the point? You've driven away the audience you were hoping you'd lower the threshold for.

[John_4185]

"There's a simple solution to all these problems. Artists should just stop sucking at the public teat."

And while we are at it, what's with this Public Library thing? Public teat sucking literature freaks! Who is telling us what to read? Some kinda aristocratic clan? Free books from public money? I tell ya, that Carnegie guy shoulda stuck to his business, pure capitalism, no free lunch and no free books. You should see what kind of things are printed and on public shelves!

Is the sun rising in any minds yet?

[Frank Petronio]

The problem with peer reviewed government funding of artists is that it usually becomes a mutual admiration society, where a judge from one council will support their buddy on another. Think of it as a good old brown lesbian's club.

Of course most NEA money goes towards organizations, not individuals, but eventually some money actually filters down to an artist, somewhere.

No matter how much arts funding we provide, there will always be poor artists. Very few young artists benefit from these grants or programs - they tend to go with the establishment and academic artists who circle jerk each other.

My worry is not that our society is sick based on an unwillingness to fund art with public money. My worry is that most people have lost the ability to critically think about issues and see what actually works in the real world. Combine that with sloppy, lazy journalism, and you end up with a liberal, ill-informed society that rubberstamps any movement for feeding the poor, protecting the environment, or being pro-art and anti-war. Which are all noble sentiments but doesn't mean that every proposed solution is the right one. More than half the time the well meaning "solution" causes more harm in the long run.

[paulr]

"Combine that with sloppy, lazy journalism, and you end up with a liberal, ill-informed society that rubberstamps any movement for feeding the poor, protecting the environment, or being pro-art and anti-war. "

then i wonder what led to our conservative, ill-informed society, that seems to be behaving in all the opposite ways.

[paulr]

Unlike a lot of artists and liberal people, I actually think those who oppose public funding for the arts have some strong points.

In the end I think it comes down to some basic values ... what you think the priorites of a society should be, and what you think the responsibilities of government should be. These are never black and white issues, and smart people will continue to disagree on them vehemently.

Tim's questions, like "why should the government fund NASA?" are equally relevent. There is no obvious imperative that poor people should be taxed to fund the exploration of distant planets. But enough people think it's a good idea for the government to take on this responsibility that it goes on, without all that many detractors. Same with other scientific research. And with national parks. And a million other things that aren't as universally agreed on as the fire department.

As far as the arts, I'm a strong believer in corporate giving and many other kinds of private sponsorship. But I also see that in practice, it's never enough. So, for reasons no greater than my vision for what the world should be like, I'm a strong supporter of public arts funding. And I know there will always be people opposed to it, keeping people like me in check, so we can be sure never to run out of money for cruise misiles.

[Paul Butzi]

When was that? Certainly not during the Renaissance, nor the period of Greece and Rome, nor earlier in the 10,000 year Ancient Egyption civilization - those periods of craftsmanship that endure for reasons we can discuss.



The NEA was founded in 1965.

Unless you're suggesting that no art was made prior to 1965, or that NEA funding is being transported backward in time by people in black helicopters, using technology stolen from the UFO's we're hiding in area 51, I think we can safely say that there was art made in the United States which was not funded with NEA dollars.

Are you telling me that the cave paintings at Lascaux were funded by a government? Really? Which government was that?

No renaissance art done without government funding? Really? All those paintings done for private patrons - they got government funding for them? Wow.

[tim atherton]

at which point, once the discussion moves from "what kind of art should the NEA fund" to "should the government fund art" it all become pretty much pointless. It just becomes a debate about (generally irreconcilable) differences about political ideologies and almost purely subjective.

Person a. is outraged that their tax dollars get spent on a huge offensive defence organization and is used for killing hundreds of thousands of people, or that the government subsidizes the forest industry or big areas of agriculture, but they believe the government should spend dollars on healthcare, education and has no problem with the government funding areas of the arts - indeed, believes it is essential that they do.

Person b. believes the opposite or one of a dozen variations thereof

And neither is ever going to agree or see eye to eye on any of the big points.....

[tim atherton]

"And while we are at it, what's with this Public Library thing? Public teat sucking literature freaks!"

Jeez - apart from making a good point (though I'm waiting for the "libraries as a subversive socialist plot repsonse) - that comment gave me some very weird visuals....