Heres a dumb question about 2 adams

[tim atherton]

aww - and I just thought you were full of Xmas cheer... :-)

[paulr]

A question that hasn't been asked is, what's the solution to the Seranno issue? The NEA made a grant to a respected regional art institution. They probably give a similar one every year. The federal funding is probably one of several sources of income for the institution.

So, in accepting this money, should that institution be somehow bound to a national standard of good taste?

A regional standard of good taste?

Should the government presume to be buying curatorial powers by giving money to a non-profit arts organization?

If a government organization discontinues funding of an institution because it doesn't like what the institution is communicating, is this a simple case of the government spending responsibly, or is it a form of veiled censorship? Can there be a gray area?

How does the (aparent) presumption that it is our right to never be offended fit in with the first ammendment?

Is it a curator's responsibility to avoid offending anyone?

Is it possible for a work of art to be significant or in some way educational even if it is offensive to many people?

What is a curator's primary job, anyhow? To educate? To entertain? To please? To affirm what people already believe?

[Paul Butzi]

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

I would have thought that was obvious. There's no particular reason the arts have to be funded by tax dollars.

So, in accepting this money, should that institution be somehow bound to a national standard of good taste?

That's exactly the problem. So the obvious solution is to cut the NEA entirely, and fund arts organizations with voluntary donations from private individuals.

How does the (aparent) presumption that it is our right to never be offended fit in with the first ammendment?

You (and I) don't have a right to never be offended. If I were offended by Serrano's work (it turns out I'm not), I'd still defend his right to make the work. I just don't think he has the right to make work that offends the majority of the people and get funded by taxes, that's all.

Is it possible for a work of art to be significant or in some way educational even if it is offensive to many people?

Well, that's rather obvious, isn't it? Lots of significant work is offensive to someone. JJ, for instance, would apparently be offended by the Donatello crucifix that hangs in Santa Croce in Florence, for instance. And yet, the same crucifix is an inspiring work of art to those who worship there.

So maybe the question you haven't asked is "is it appropriate to force the folks who are offended to subsidize the work that offends them?"

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

[Barry Trabitz]

Do we not get the legislators we deserve? How else can one explain Senators such as Jesse Helms? After all whatever it takes to get elected by the "Hoi Polloi" is the way to power. Jesse used the morality ploy and the race ploy and the enemies of the state ploy to stay in power. I wonder if his criticism of"elitism" in the NEA really was nothing more than a way to move the attention of his electorate from some of the issues that really were important. Of course Jesse was VERY selective in his anti elitist criticism. After all should not the Bible he so revered be on his hit list for the very same reasons he oppossed Maplethorpe?

[tim atherton]

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

I would have thought that was obvious. There's no particular reason the
arts have to be funded by tax dollars."

Why is that obvious? Why should (or would) a civilised society chose not to fund art?

[tim atherton]

Also, why do we fund NASA? for example

[tim atherton]

I think that a society that choses as a whole not to support or nurture art is one which is truly lacking in something (and has probably lost its soul along the way)

[paulr]

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

This is the obvious solution, but I think there's a good case against it, especially for anyone who dislikes the idea of elitism.

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.

When I said federal funding for the arts is laughably small, I meant it. 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.

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.

[Paul Butzi]

Why is that obvious?

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!

Why should (or would) a civilised society chose not to fund art?

Who said a civilized society would choose not to fund art? Not me. I think funding and support for the arts is absolutely, critically essential. That (along with the fact that the rest of my family agrees) is why such a large percentage of my family's income goes to support the arts, and why two members of my family currently serve on the boards of art organizations.

I think that a society that choses as a whole not to support or nurture art is one which is truly lacking in something (and has probably lost its soul along the way)

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

[Oren Grad]

Why is that obvious? Why should (or would) a civilised society chose not to fund art?

I think that a society that choses as a whole not to support or nurture art is one which is truly lacking in something (and has probably lost its soul along the way)

Tim, just by the way you phrased your comments, you shifted the terms of the debate. Paul isn't objecting to society supporting art. He's objecting to the government supporting art via compulsory exaction from taxpayers. At least paulr addresses that issue directly.

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.

But in practice, this is a crock. What you really end up with, on balance, is having lower-income people subsidize the pleasures of the more affluent, who are the dominant consumers of this stuff. No, I don't mean that lower income people are necessarily too dumb to enjoy high culture. I just mean that on balance, we end up with a net transfer of resources from those who have less money to those who have more, in the name of bringing culture to those who have less.

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.

Then they are making a statement about their own values. Given the sums that are spent across the income spectrum on home entertainment gadgets and program material and on tickets to movies and live popular entertainment, the number of people who literally cannot afford ever to go to symphony or to an art museum has to be very small. That people choose to spend their money otherwise is their decision. And for those few who are so strapped that they have sacrificed even the television set and still literally don't have enough money to ever go to a museum, frankly, if you really want to help, they would be much better served by providing general income support and letting them decide for themselves whether museum attendance is what they need most in order to have a better life.