Is commercialism or self indulgence a greater threat to"art"?

[Neal Shields]

Everyone go look at Ellis?s new web site. He demonstrates that ?art? and ?professionalism? are not mutually exclusive. I don?t even like color photography and his bowled me over.

My point is, that often when people complain that the community won?t support art, what they really mean is that the community won?t support amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art. I believe that real ?art? will touch something in a high school drop out living under a bridge. He may not understand it, but it will connect on some level. If in today?s mass communication age, if you can?t find a market to support your art, ( I certainly can?t) the problem isn?t likely to be a lack of federal government support.

http://www.ellisvener.com/index2.html -- Neal

[Mark Meyer]

what they really mean is that the community won?t support amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art. I believe that real ?art? will touch something in a high school drop History has shown this to be flatly wrong. Dead wrong. Completely wrong. The community has always been more than thrilled to support poor art. Look at television. What the community has not been willing to support is Mozart (subsidized by the court, died broke), Bach (payed by the church), Van Gogh (not payed at all). All of these examples had contemporaries that were fabulously successful in a commercial sense that have been forgoten like yesterday's breakfast. Most great art is challenging and often difficult to appreciate in the time it is created. Yet somehow these works end up being a representative of it's times--not the artistic equivalent of friut-loops that are commercially successful in every age. Read up on the premiere of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring.' The people revolted; there was a riot. So does this mean it is "amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art?" That's ridiculous.

[Neal Shields]

"ensures that her art is aligned with the community"

Does this remind anybody but me of "1984"?

Neal

[Neal Shields]

I don?t mind getting beat up. But at least beat me up for my opinion.

I will stipulate that: Art is as important as it gets. One of my favorite quotes is from William Faulkner who was asked some inane question by a journalist. The question doesn?t survive in my memory but the answer does: ?Ode on a Grecian Urn, is worth any number of old women?. ( I don't however, agree that bad(most)TV is art.)

Second, I will stipulate that sometimes, bad art (experimentation) is required as a path to extraordinary art.

Third I will admit that there is a lot of very good art that the majority of people don't like.

However: because something is important, doesn?t necessarily mean the government needs to subsidize it.

Second, government intervention is often counterproductive.

Third, history teaches us that enduring art, (a judgment I accept) tends to be the fruit of sacrifice, discipline and dedication. The discipline and dedication of someone that is a commercial success in a field, is likely to directly benefit their more ?artistic? efforts.

Forth, in today's "information age" even extremely esoteric art can recieve a world wide exposure. If there aren't enough people in the whole world to support an artistic endevor, it is quite likely that history will have the same opinion.

Fifth, and this seems to be where we will split, I don?t believe that beltway opinions on ?art? are superior to anyone else?s. There is something very primal about art that goes beyond: ?the eye enters a photograph on the lower left and moves to the upper right?.

If I took more pictures, I would be a better photographer. I don?t need a grant to do that. I simply need to place a higher priority on it. It may be "catch 22"?maybe the very act of asking for a grant should disqualify you from getting one.

Every day in America people are forced out of their homes to satisfy tax leans. I think on this very web site, I have seen questions such as: ?I have just received a grant which includes the purchase of a camera, what should I buy??

Who of us, would want to tell someone that even an very small part of the reason that they are losing their home to help buy some grant recipient an expensive camera?

(I started paying into social security when I was 16 and have paid in for over 35 years, now I am told that the government might not be able to afford to honor their agreement with that 16 year old. Is 10 cents too much? Maybe.)

[John Kasaian]

If you marinate whooping crane in either buttermilk or ginger ale, you'll get rid of the gamey taste. I don't know if this works for bald eagles or spotted owls.

[Ellis Vener]

"My point is, that often when people complain that the community won?t support art, what they really mean is that the community won?t support amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art."

No that isn't what "they" mean. I say this having been on the sidelines (as opposed to the cheap seats in the stadium) of several of these fights and discussions (I guess I am on the field in this diuscussion, though!). what 'they" mean is that some narrow minded bureaucrat or elected official gets scared that a few narrow minded self appointed censors will raise a hue and cry over the work they are threatened by and the work will become "controversial". Usually all it takes is one or two people who feel secure enough in their position to stand up to the self appointed bullies. And there are self-righteous bullies on both sides of the fight: People who have mouths wider than their ability to comprehend that it is a big world.

After all who are you to say what is amateurish, or not well marketed? McDonald's is great at marketing inoffensive products that appeal to a huge range of people. So is the "Painter of Light' (a trademarked slogan) Thomas Kincaid. That doesn't mean Kinkaid's work isn't complete pablum smeared on canvas or that a Big Mac tastes the same as fresh bread, a real salad and a small piece of steak that is well cooked.

looking back on your argument it reeks of the 'anti-elitism" practiced by the Bolsheviks and the far right brand of socialists. There are things in the world that have value beyond dollars. Most "artists" I know work extremely hard, harder than most of us do in our 'day jobs" , at what they do with extremely little fiscal gain to show for it. And one day a year to "do" art won't result in art, it will result in millions of pieces of crap.

Finally I didn't appreciate you publishing that web address. The site isn't finished and I only sent it to you privately as a courtesy. If I had wanted it generally known I would have made it widely available.

[Kevin Kemner]

If I remember correctly Saints Ansel and Edward received governmental and corporate support.

[Charlie Stracl]

A couple of random thoughts.

1. Neal: you seem to really be complaining about taxes. I doubt there's any value to making those complaints on this forum. If you're going to complain, complain effectively. (That means do something to cause a change to alleviate your cause for complaint, don't just whine.)

2. Strict vegetarians cannot be photographers, since all photo materials use gelatine, derived from animals, mostly cows. Of course you probably can't use electronic equipment, since photographic negatives were used in the production of most electronic equipment.

[Erec Grim]

Ellis, I suspect your mastery of argumentation will clear the playground. I haven't heard such sophisticated name-calling since 8th grade. (What the h**l is a "far right brand of socialist," anyway? But it doesn't matter, does it, if there isn't any such thing? It sounds bad.)

Charlie, the subject is art subsidies. The money for the subsidies comes from taxpayers. See?

E. Grim

[Charlie Stracl]

E. Grim:

I understand that. I'm suspect Neal's true complaint is sub rosa, based on some of his follow up comments.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather my taxes go to the arts than some of the other pork. Even art I don't particularly appreciate.

Charlie