Should The Federal Government Subsidize Art

The National Gallery and Kennedy Center are subsidized by NEA isn't not? c.i.

c.i. the NGA is funded mostly by the Mellons Trust and other major patrons. The Ken Cen has patrons, large corporations and wealthy individuals, and of course the charge of admission for support. The NEA on occasion does provide funds for exhibitions but is primarily geared to funding private artists and groups to encourage education in the arts and to encourage development of the arts.

Ah, so...... c.i.

nea
The arts are an important part of our cultural well-being; they are national resources. But since their benefit does not always translate into commercial value, if we are enlightened we will be willing to subsidize them. This, of course, will always involve political disagreements and conflict. I would like very much to see what we as a group come up with on this matter. Good thread, Joanne.

I think the danger of subsidized art is how the money is spent of "junk" art. Remember that jesus art in New York? Sometimes creative art goes too far for my taste. "Taste" is a bad word in this context. c.i.

nea
O.K. C.I. the path has begun. I do not necessarily argue that every professed artist should be given a living. But s/he might be helped to be able to have enough resources (and perhaps collective spaces) to do work even while holding a job, part time or full time. SOME kind of support would be better than nothing. Look at the national benefit gained from the WPA and the G.I. bill in the 50s. I would NOT like to see decision-making boards run by Guilianis. It must be manned primarily by accomplished artists who receive compensation for the time they spend reading grants and viewing portfolios. Your right: taste is a hairy issue. But artists can transcend that issue much easier than can civilians.

No organization is perfect. For every hundred grants given out, there is going to be at least one controversy. Our news media sees to that. Looking at the bigger picture, the NEA represents a commitment from our government to the arts, which is much needed in this time.

kayla, True! I love art, and I'd be the last person to even suggest that our government stop funding NEA. My only concern is how MOST government funded institutions 'wastes' good money, and it's not limited to the NEA. c.i.

nea
Right, C.I., if the govt. (which we must remember is US not some alien occupation force) supported only perfect, never-controversial projects nothing would be supported. For God's sake, look at Bush's "faith-based" govt. support program. Kayla, I hope you're feeling better.

i have some questions regarding funding museums etc, i have no problems with public funding of the "process" of art. realizing that i have a "Radical" vision of art i find it notable that very large collections of art, and all the world's major museums, are the work of the very rich or of societies during strongly nationalistic periods. All the principal museums in New York, for example are associated with the names of the famously rich: Carneigie, Frick, Rockefeller, Whitney, Morgan, Lehman. Such museums are designed not to protect the art from the people but to protect the people from art. just my opinion i could be wrong.

dys, What do you mean by "the process of art?" Many museums display art works of history such as the Cairo Museum, so I'm not sure I understand what you mean. c.i.

nea
Dyslexia, I lost a longer response to you, but the gist of it is that perhaps museums (and I would check with Joanne Dorel on this) serve to protect great art works (as national treasures) from the market place where they are mere commodities.

um c.i. good question as i am sure i was not at all clear in my intent, but i was thinking of was during the depression the C.C.C. or the W.P.A. funded artists including photographers, fine artists etc which in turn resulted in some of the finest art of the 20th century. much of that art was displayed in places like the local post offices that are public domain. it was the artists themselves that were funded and not the products of their art.

nea
C.I. I still don't understand. Of course it would be the artists that are funded--SO THAT they can create art. What do you mean by "not the products of their art"?

As someone who has worked as a consultant in an NEA funded project, I'd back any effort towards a real discussion about whether, in a democracy, we ought to have federal funding for the arts. But I think the arguments surrounding individual works which receive funding are, frankly, ridiculous. In fact individual works don't receive funding: museums may get help from the NEA to mount a particular exhibit, and that exhibit may contain works which puzzle or offend. If I had to choose whether my tax money supported a cross in urine as one piece in a large art exhibit vs. supporting the maiming of (say) Iraqi children as an offshoot of a larger aggressive action, I'd sure as heck opt for the former! By the way, one of the methods the Endowment and other major public arts organizations have for justifying their efforts is measuring the economic impact of the arts -- the amount of money which is returned to the community through hotel and restaurant and other revenues from people travelling to see exhibits, performances, etc. And the impact is considerable. So there are a lot of facets to the question of public funding.

Personally, I think we take a backwards approach in funding "Art". We quite often pay self proclaimed artists to create something (music, paintings, sculptures, etc..) with a long term hope of continuing the artist's trade/craft and generating some excietment amongst the public as well as funding some traveling exihibitions.

I'd rather the money be spent on classes, seminars, etc at the local level that teach non-artists about art directly. I think that would get non-artists more excited in art as they understand more and can appreciate the works that are available. Instead of funding a few who seem to become more and more exotic and further from the mainstream it would increase the potential number of people that can comprehend an artists work.

There would still be a need to fund some traveling exihibitions (wouldn't it be nice if we all had world class art exhibits in out hometowns?) but the artists themselves would be able to survive by having a larger pool of buyers (of course, if they produce garbage that is rejected by all then maybe they should reconsider their status as an "artist").

art
TARTARIN, thanks for the relevant facts. My contribution was clearly ridiculous in so far as I was thinking (or not thinking) in terms of federal support for individual artists, on the model of the WPA of the 50s. But is there no possiblity that NEA funding for museum and other more corporate projects would not "trickle down" to individual artists to the extent that it contributes to the infrastructure of their "art world?"

JLN, I think you meant to address that q to dys. c.i.

c.i.<

Were you the sole judge of what qualifies as "art," the world would be a dreary place, indeed. Just because you happen not to like something does not mean it is unfit to be seen. Diversity in art is not to be decided by fiat. I might have loved that jar of urine simply because it pi@@ed you off

Please remember that we have First Amendment rights in our country. These rights apply to all forms of expression including the arts. Your narrow viewpoint would have a chilling effect on what others might see. I don't believe that would be your intent.