Should The Federal Government Subsidize Art

art
C.I., are you sure you didn't mean to address YOUR question to WilliamsHenry?
Tartarin was definitely my questionEE.

williamhenry, Your criticism is unwarranted. I never claimed to be a judge of good art. I also understand that art is a very personal and subjective medium. Where you come off criticizing my opinion of art is only my opinion, and will never affect what is displayed nor sold. Get off your high horse, and quit judging me as an individual that enjoys art. Your enjoyment of a jar of piss is your business - not mine. Go enjoy! c.i.

Simmer down, c.i.

As for me, I'll stay here on my high horse, especially after reading your post to this thread of Jan. 4, 2003,
at 8:12 p.m.

What qualifies you -- or anybody else -- to judge art as "junk"?

<BTW>Have you seen, on one of your many trips to the far reaches of the world, the hit musical entitled Urinetown?

Well guess I have missed a lot in the last couple of days. I must say I am surprised at some the the posts. Did any of you read the link to the NEA I posted?

WELCOME to A2k FARMER MAN

"Junk" is my opinion. Can you get that through your head? That's a 'personal' judgement. It doesn't affect how others view the same "art." For me, it's still "junk." What may be my "junk" may be your treasure. Satisfied? c.i.

I think I get it, ci. All of us love to play critic and are, of course, sometimes way off the mark. I agree with William Henry that there can be no judgement of what should or should not be displayed -- some people cannot interpret what the artist's intent is because they're in denial. This is really old news since in almost all cases, the museum and artists have been vindicated by the courts and in recent years hasn't reached the USSC, who I doubt would even hear a case. Questions of freedom of speech reached there many years ago and in one case, they couldn't decide what was the gauge for what was pornographic and what was not. It's part of our freedoms which we are losing right now in the form of a loss of privacy. The NEA is funded with what amounts to pennies from the average tax payer -- I might stick my neck out and say the argument is petty.

(There's far more important issues regarding our tax payer dollars that a few offensive art pieces).

LW, My criticism of certain art works will not change when or how the NEA funds art works - the same way that my vote for Nader did not affect how our president was 'selected.' I always criticise GW, because of his many failings as a president in my eyes - it's all my 'personal' opinion. That will not change the fact that "he is" our president. Get it? c.i.

Are we testy this morning, ci? The point of the discussion is whether we should fund the arts and I believe it's a legacy of President Kennedy that has to be retained. You are correct and I understand that you have the freedom to criticize the art being shown and that it doesn't have any bearing on the funding. The funding also keeps museums open and the entry fees low for those who can't afford it. It's customary to attack "visual bites" with sound bites in the media. Someone like Mayor Giulani has some flaws in his pedestal and one of them was trying to shut down exhibitions based on his own questionable critical expertise.

This project exists with funding from the NEA and others and it is neither offensive nor frivilous in my opinion.

One NEA Supported Program

Lightwizard<

Many uninformed people see federal funding for the arts as a "liberal" cause and want to eliminate it entirely for that reason.

Rather, funding for the arts is really crucial for all, regardless of their political outlook. "Art" cannot exist without being seen, and the NEA helps aide the aesthetic aspect of our national consciousness. Cutting off federal funding to the arts would hurt everyone. The nation's freedom of expression will be damaged if arts funding is cut and/or eliminated.

Oops! My problem is that (a few years ago now) I've had a bit of experience in this area. Some art is brilliant and "ugly." Some people judge art according to whether it would look nice in their living room. Some people are more educated visually and don't see art in terms of decor. Some self-declared artists just aren't artists, no matter how much they want to be, and it sometimes takes them heartbreaking years to figure that out and sometimes at the end of the process they figure people just don't understand them. Though I spent some time working on an NEA-related project, my actual profession is artist. Dealer, galleries, sell work, reviews, self-supporting, etc. I often have personal doubts; I often get tremendously turned on by a new idea and get down to work and forget doubts. Do you get to be an electrician because you "just love it" and decide you are? Nope -- not an artist either. In many other countries, artists and artisans and are talked about in the same breath -- where I lived in Europe, I was required to carry a "guild card" (dating back to the 12th century and looking it!) saying I was an artisan -- a requirement for artists who have dealers, sell. I like the perception that artists are simply part of a much larger work world consisting of brokers, plumbers, merchant navy, presidents, dentists, IRS agents and... you get the point. I'm delighted that so many art museums have funding and curators who are educated, creative, have both passion and humility, make interesting choices, and mount interesting shows. The shows themselves, as juxtapositions of ideas, are often art in themselves. I have no problem with anyone sinking my tax money into keeping these institutions in business nor that I also have to pay an entrance fee. The question is whether we put public money into public education about art (through museums and other institutions as well as courses, training) or not. Should those exhibits consist entirely of "safe" art? People aren't going to learn about art if they only look at stuff everyone agrees about and thinks is "safe." Why is it okay to watch a priest in the movies murder someone in a particularly horrific way but not okay to stare at the cross in urine in an art museum? If one looks at the change in American knowledge of art and access to art (most spectacularly in rural, small city, non-NYC areas) since the NEA was started, one has to admit we've moved ahead by light years. That change has enlarged our world enormously and has, it must be noted, given a tremendous economic boost (often through tourism) to many areas. Public funding is subject which needs ongoing discussion because we are an open democracy (or used to be). Should people be expected to pay taxes to fund something they think is wrong, or frivolous, or worse? Should a pacifist have to fund the Department of Defense? Should those who deplore Western medicine have to fund health programs? Is it public funding to art when, as it turns out, the Navy cooperated in the production of the movie in which a guy offs someone in a particularly horrible way?

The General Services Administration and Art endows art work too.

General Services Administration Fund Art To

Some Examples of GSA Funded Art




Tartarin when did you work for the NEA and in what capcity?

art
Tartarin, I appreciated much of what you say about the value for society of the NEA. I question your concept of the bona fide artist, however. He or she need not be a commercially viable professional. The artist might be as much like a not-for-profit monk as a for-profit plummer. And, you would agree, of course, that the value of NEA-sponsored art projects extends far beyond its contribution to the commercial gains of tourism.

art
By the way, Joanne, thanks for the demonstrations of NEA's contributions. We seem to only hear in the media of projects that offend someone, not all the others. You help to balance the picture.

Joanne D - Et Al,

I agree that the NEA provides an appropriate and useful role!

The contributions to Museums and projects are of great benefit to society on the whole and to the individuals how take advantage of these opportunities.

A shortfall, I believe, is in the lack of funding for individual artists. With a greater selection of new art and artforms for museums to select from, the experience for visitors would be further enhanced, with broader perspectives represented.

There should be a medium through which such funding might be provided for a nominal period, for purposes of conversation let's say six months, to allow young new artists and old re-emerging artists an opportunity to develope enlarged portfolios.

Below is an cut & paste form the NEA website ...

Individual artists: Congress has prohibited the Endowment from making direct grants to individuals except for Literature Fellowships, American Jazz Masters Fellowships, and National Heritage Fellowships in the Folk & Traditional Arts.

In light of this:

I have proposed that a privately funded endowment be created for this purpose. I have offered to use my website ( globalvillagesquare.com ) and it's potential funding form the growing number of affiliate sponsors to create a trust for generating such an endowment. In this way Patrons for the Arts could make a contribution to an endowment by simply doing many of the things they may currently do on the Web, i.e. shopping, travel, searches, services etc.

I do not fully understand all of the ramifications, legal, ethical and otherwise, of making such an offering and have been reluctant to make such claims of an offering to provide for such an endowment. Also there are the issues of the funding of the basic costs of creation and maintanence, how much of cashflow might justifiable belong to the provider, who does the selections, are they funded or is their input purely donated etc.

Regardless to by whom or how funding might for such an endowment might be generated, what are your opinions on such a proposal?

If such a endowment driven website were provided do you think it would receive sufficient traffic to generate the essential funding?

Do artist deserve a chance to work for income part-time and work at their craft full time, for a period, to test the waters?

I any case do what you can to suppport the Arts and the Artists!

Hey, BillBo -- aren't you a long way from Rivendell?

Welcome to A2K and the Arts Forum!

Also,

Welcome to Tartarin!

(Had to edit that -- some of you come up with some of the most difficult to spell handles!)

politics
LW, and to Trespasserwill as well.