Heres a dumb question about 2 adams

[QT Luong]

Laurent de Medicis raised taxes.

[John_4185]

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

Paul, the patrons during the Renaissance, and during the rein of The Church WERE the government. Look to ancieent Rome, Greece and Egypt for the same. The Medici were not 'private', really. It was all about governing, ruling influence.

[John_4185]

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

Well, I am glad you asked, because you know I, one of the Eternal Neandertals, was there. We ruled the earth back then, when it amused us, and we used to sit around after our big vegetarian dinners, smoke a little weed and spin tales of the future. Sometimes we would invite our unfortunate, frail, flesh-eating Sapien housekeepers and cooks to attend. (They were disgusting wrecks, ate meat, never cleaned up.) Michalangelo Mudd, among other esteemed Neandertals, would do his famous ephemeral paintings on the wall and after we left, the Saps would invariably try to trace over them; of course, they could not follow a line if it were an eight-lane time machine vector (which is ab0ut a galaxy wide). What's left is their stuff.

So, yes, the cave stuff was funded. And now you are stuck with it.

[Frank Petronio]

See, it's always #@$& France that's to blame.

[John_4185]

See, it's always #@$& France that's to blame.

Oui, les neadertals sont Français! C'est pas dommage, mais France est plus superior que les autres pays europeens. Pas Etats-Unis.

BTW - Mon nom vrai est Jalbert.

[paulr]

Je voudrais va a salle de bain.

[Oren Grad]

Cela est bien dit, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin.

[Paul Butzi]

The Medici were not 'private', really. It was all about governing, ruling influence.


and

Laurent de Medicis raised taxes.

Well, Giovanni de Bicci de'Medici was the man who became the merchant banker and founded the Medici fortune, etc.

Good old Giovanni, in addition to fathering Cosimo, was a patron of the arts. While I'm sure Giovanni was influential, he wasn't really part of the government, per se.

That started with Cosimo, his son, who acted as the unofficial ruler of Florence, starting in 1434, which (unfortunately for the argument that the Medici patronage occurred only after they took over the Florentine government) occurred AFTER Giovanni's death in 1429.

Lorenzo the Magnificent was Giovanni de Biici's great grandson, and thus Cosimo's grandson. I don't doubt he levied taxes, nor do I doubt that he funded the arts with such money, but he was born 20 years after Giovanni (the first Medici patron of the arts) died.

And that's ignoring all the rest of the merchant bankers from that period in Italy, many of whom were also patrons of the arts (it was a fashionable way to display conspicuous consumption during that era).

Let's pick an American artist most of us know - Ralph Eugene Meatyard. He didn't start to photograph until 1950, so he couldn't have gotten tax dollar funding for his art through the WPA.
Meatyard worked as an optician, and mostly did his photography on weekends. Everything he did prior to 1965 would have been done without the benefit of federal support for the arts funded by tax dollars.

I'm sure it's child's play to come up with artists who weren't funded by tax dollars - Meatyard just happened to come to mind as a recent example.

[tim atherton]

Pual,

I think the point is that all through history the arts have been bankrolled by rich patrons AND by governments. Much great art through has been funded by both means. Some has probably only been produced thanks to a rich patron. Some has most probably only been produced because it was supported by government funding (whether that was a Prince Bishop, a Doge, the NEA or Queen Victoria)

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?

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?

[paulr]

"I'm sure it's child's play to come up with artists who weren't funded by tax dollars"

Of course it is! Most photographers in the 19th Century were just independently wealthy. Most in this century have been middle class, with decent jobs. People with less money have either chosen a cheaper avocation, or chosen to suffer: Robert Adams actually mentions a friend who went back to cleaning houses after her Guggenheim ran out.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that art wouldn't happen without pennies from heaven. The idea is that more funding allows art to be made that otherwise wouldn't ... and it strives to distribute the means based on merit rather than wealth.

Curiously, it's the increasing accessibility of photographic technology that bugs a lot of people in places like this forum. The underlying message being, "photography should only be for those who can afford expensive gear." These are the attitudes, in my mind, that deserve the elitist label, and deserve it in the bad sense.