Heres a dumb question about 2 adams

[Paul Butzi]

I still don't quite understand why it is apparently such an awful thing for the rulers of the day to spend money on the arts?

I think you're ignoring the thread, which ran roughly like this: I opined that it was obvious that there was no particular reason why the arts had to be funded with tax dollars.

Someone asked why I thought it was obvious, and I replied that since there were times when arts weren't funded with tax dollars, and art still somehow got made that pretty much sealed it for me.

And we went into a little side discussion about whether the cave paintings were funded with tax dollars, and whether there were private individuals who patronized the arts during the renaissance, etc.

As for whether it's awful for a king (or duke, or whatever) to tax his subjects and then spend the cash on art, well...

Let's just agree to disagree. What's appropriate in a monarchy is not always what's appropriate in a democracy.

As for Meatyard - one can only wonder at what he might have produced if he hadn't had to spend sop much time and energy on his day job?

Sure. Or, we might spend time wondering whether his art was enhanced by the interactions with customers, his need to earn a living, the structure it imposed on his life. Maybe without the day job, he would have had little to say in his photographs.

Art doesn't necessarily improve just because you clear all the challenges out of the artist's life.

In any case, arguing that Meatyard's art might have been improved with better funding just tells me we should have better private funding. It's only people who think government should solve all problems by building a huge bureaucracy and inefficiently spending tax dollars who think that the funding should be from taxes.

[tim atherton]

"It's only people who think government should solve all problems by building a huge bureaucracy and inefficiently spending tax dollars who think that the funding should be from taxes."

So that's an assumption that's part of the basis of your objection?

[Oren Grad]

Curiously, it's the increasing accessibility of photographic technology that bugs a lot of people in places like this forum.

Could you kindly supply evidence for this, at least insofar is it applies to this forum?

[John_4185]

It's only people who think government should solve all problems by building a huge bureaucracy and inefficiently spending tax dollars who think that the funding should be from taxes.

We should be happy that we don't get all the goverment we pay for.

[Frank Petronio]

He is probably thinking about raving luddites like APUG or Jorge... not everybody on this forum.

I don't have a problem with communities funding the arts to enhance their civic life because at least there is a modicum of local input and feedback. The problem is that the Feds are so damn inefficient and regulatory that it eats up the resource before it actually trickles down to the audience. I don't have a problem with the concept of taxes and paying my share, but when I watch "them" piss it away it bugs me. Even if it is only a buck or two out of my $X0,000 plus annual pillaging.

[tim atherton]

"As for whether it's awful for a king (or duke, or whatever) to tax his
subjects and then spend the cash on art, well... Let's just agree to disagree. What's appropriate in a monarchy is not
always what's appropriate in a democracy. "

the governments of Britain, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, Japan and goodness knows who else all generously support the art - usually to a greater rather than a lesser degree.

"It's only people who think government should solve all problems by building a huge bureaucracy and inefficiently spending tax dollars who think that the funding should be from taxes."

If you believe that the Government is inherently inefficient and should leave arts funding to the corporations, that hasn't always been my experience. I've seen behind the scenes in both government funding systems and a couple of large corporate sponsored foundations that do the same.

In the Government system, fiscal restraint was more than obvious at all levels of the bureaucracy, while in the private system, money was often spread around like it was going out of fashion.

Peer jury members, for example, in the government system saw their work as more akin to public service, and their per diems whilst at jury meetings etc just about covered their costs with a bit of pocket money let over. Artists picked as peer jurors for the foundations got more than generous expenses, they were feted and wined and dined and it was considered quite a nice little gravy train to get hooked into.

[John_4185]

THIS JUST IN

Professional Grant: The Alexia Foundation offers the Professional Grant
to enable a photographer to have the financial ability to produce a
substantial picture story that furthers the foundation's goals of
promoting world peace and cultural understanding. The recipient of
the grant will receive $15,000 for the production of the proposed
project. Any photographer may apply for this grant.

Ideas?

I propose to use the money to air-drop the Daughters of the American Revolution into Iraq. Oh, with cameras on full-auto.

[paulr]

it's a vibe i pick up on a lot. not from most people, but comes up in a lot of the "damn kids these days don't appreciate anything" threads. there's a frequent suggestion that you're not doing anything worthwile unless it involves something old, dificult, or expensive. the same kind of snobbery that was evident when film was invented, when small formats were invented, when digital cameras were invented ... all things that make the endeavor less exclusive.

[paulr]

"I propose to use the money to air-drop the Daughters of the American Revolution into Iraq. Oh, with cameras on full-auto."

oh, yeah, go for it!

if you need some help writing the grant, there's free consulting available here:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

[tim atherton]

"Professional Grant: The Alexia Foundation offers the Professional Grant to enable a photographer to have the financial ability to produce a substantial picture story that furthers the foundation's goals of promoting world peace and cultural understanding. The recipient of the grant will receive $15,000 for the production of the proposed project. Any photographer may apply for this grant. "

That's the other thing - much of this "funding" - government or private (even some of the most prestigious) is actually pretty paltry

$15,000 actually doesn't pay for a lot for working on a project - living costs, travel, transportation - if you are a photographer, film, processing, printing etc etc. (many will, for example, include a maximum monthly living allowance while working on the project of say $1,500 or $2,000 - whoopee - lets hope the artists doesn't actually have children or a mortgage. And it's usually a requirement they be working on the funded project full time). I think it was Kirk Gittings who said on here that his NEA grant as barely worth it in the equivalent of what he got paid per hour/day - and he would have been better off just working on commercial work.

Your average research scientists at the university where i am doing a contract right now probably wouldn't even bother applying for such a grant - not one that was supposed to fund them for 4-6 months.

It's not like these folk are getting rich on this - most work their butts of to a. get the funding and then b. stretch it out and make the absolute most out of it.