Should The Federal Government Subsidize Art

Thanks for the welcome any comments on my point and proposal?

It's obvious the hot button are the works of art that is left up to museum curators and other experts to decide what will be displayed. There's no getting around that they are more qualified than nearly all of us are qualified. I'd like to see more funds directed toward keeping museum doors open and free to the public than funding specific artists. I think the artist should be tested in the commercial collector market -- institutional art has its place but it's ultimately filled with disposable art. I won't call it junk as even junk can be art. It's always something that someone out there is not going to understand but focusing in on something that offends that has used some infintesimally small amount of that person's money to display is ridiculous to me. Just don't go and see it -- this is a country of freedom of choice. The government doesn't have the power to order you to see the object, so they don't have the power to order you not to see the object.

I think this is a point that sticks in the craw of many who oppose some of this funding. "Artists" are generally seen as some who eschews the convenitonal and does what they do for the love of art itself. It isn't normally considered a "job" unless they are a commercial artist. It is rather seen as "whimsy" of sorts and many people see paying an artist's wages out of the public coffers as something that shouldn't be done any more than the government should be funding everyone elses hobbies.

Joanne -- Lovely posts, both of them! The quilt is delicious and reminds me of a recent quilt show -- Alabama quilts, I think -- which is all over the NY Times. They're also gorgeous and particularly fascinating because, unless it's a fluke, they show the influence of Mondrian and Rothko and others.... If I see a photo in color, I'll paste it in here for you. I set up and ran a modest little int'l cultural exchange program funded by the NEA backaways, in answer to your question.

JL Nobody -- No, commercially viable is not the measure of the artist. What I was referring to was what I see as a kind of overly-accepting, even awe-filled attitude towards self-proclaimed artists, as though they practice levitation or something! Most "real" artists (in my experience) would go on doing what they do whether recognized or not, supplement with teaching and other jobs. Most of the ones I know get sweaty, work ceaselessly and hard, think about the money problem a lot!

Also, I emphasize the economic side of the issue because it's one which tends to get forgotten, as though the arts were a free box of candies delivered to our very door, unless, that is, you are the museum or performing arts center trying to present the art. Money is a bummer. Ticket prices don't come anywhere near paying the costs... The trick is to get the private sector to help out whenever possible since public funding has diminished so dramatically. Lots of art funding comes from the marketing departments of large corporations. Marketing. So you learn to relate the exhibit to the other "returns" in order to "sell" the idea of funding to corporations etc. Fact of art-institution life. Tougher when you realize you have to deal with, oh, Philip Morris or Mobil or Enron or... you know!! But it does mean the 7th graders can walk through the museum in hordes and for free.

I do agree, BillBo, that the endowment shouldn't be precluding any style or genre of art when appropriating funds to individual artists. The endowment has been pared down to almost an insignificant amount of money -- it certainly isn't enough to boost an artist's career into the big time of the high art market. The choice of art does become arbitrary as it's filtered through committees. Not the best way to try and get new art exposed to the public.

art
Yes, Fishin, people, in my experience, do not take the work of noncommercial artist seriously. It's mere whimsy which I suspect they would not like to sponsor with taxes. But I don't understand why they would prefer to sponsor the work of a professional art JUST BECAUSE he is motivated by commercial ends.

I don't think I can characterize the act of producing art as a whimsy or hobby. If an individual wants to judge a particular piece of art that way, that's their privelege. It's not how the museum curator or other expert within the high art establishment would look at it. There is a misconception that producing art is just a job.

JL - I don't know of anyone that hires a commercial artist for reasons other than to get the end product. The person that does the hiring also gets to decide what they want to a large extent. If they are doing a magazine spread on a specific park they send a painter, photographer, etc.. out to that park. They don't hand them $10,000 and tell them to just come back with whatever strikes their fancy.

Rightly or wrongly that is the general perception of the NEA grants to individual artists. I have no problem buying things from non-commercial artists but then I buy what they have already produced if I like it. When these grants are given out the artists submits samples of prior works but that doesn't mean they'll produce something that matches any of those. In effect they are handed money and told to come back in 6 months with something and then the public gets to decide whether the product is good or bad. But the public's money is alreday spent whether they get anything at all or not.

Why is the public supposed to defer to what they say? If I see my casting a fly as "art" should the government pay me to go fishing all day long?

fishin, Sometimes, some people's hobbies turn out better 'quality' art than the supposed full-time "artist." I see your point. c.i.

sponsorship
Thank you Tartarin, points well taken, and enlightening. But I am surprised, even shocked, by the notion that in America, you say, the "economic side" tends to be forgotten. May be, but I'm shocked to hear it; it's the most counter-intuitive thing I've heard in a long time.

You can criticize an individual choice, although you're casting a fly isn't about to make it into a museum, so don't worry there. The grants to individual artists, now severely strictured, is not enough for any artist to live on. It's barely enough to pay for their materials. I'm not entirely agreeable to the bureaucracy necessary to select the artists who qualify, especially as the government has virtually disembowled the program. There are foundations who find and promote new artists and there are art scholarships. It would be better for the NEA to support entities who help artists early in their careers if they have in place a proper screening process, including extensive portfolios required for submission. The current system is a hit or miss, but rather typical of all government programs. Let's add up all the failed hit and miss expenditures on weaponry for the last fifty years if you want to really the taxpayer's dander up. If art isn't important in someone's life, they are likely to resent the cost of an old Blue Chip stamp to finance it. (Well, come to think of it, perhaps a bad example -- those might be valuable collector items now!) In other words, if you consider another WMD added to our inventory over one virtually insignificant expenditure on a few pieces of art, your priorities are nothing like mine.

art sponsorship
Fishin', I also don't like to think of the artist as an employee. I know you were specifically referring to the commercial artist's situation to make a point. But we all have different models of how the world IS and how it SHOULD be, and mine includes the notion that as a member of a society I should be willing to "sacrifice" (meaning sacred act) for some things that need not bring certain benefits TO ME. We pay insurance premiums for a sense of security against disasters that may never happen. My sacrifices (i.e., financial contributions) to many artistic and political causes are made without guarantees, but I feel ethically obligated to make them. An enlightened, and professed civilized, society should (as a demonstration of its profession) make sacrifices for good causes like those of the arts.

What makes anyone think it's so easy to get these funds, or for that matter to get into a good art school. The recent storyline on "Queer As Folk" of the young artist trying to get into an art school is pretty accurate. I had to submit a portfolio that took two years to assemble to just take part time classes at Otis Art Institute in the 60's. I can imagine it's even more strigent today. It's not as easy as one thinks to qualify and get NEA funding and it certainly doesn't keep any of the individuals or entiries in business.
I just still don't believe any taxpayer could be upset about this particular tiny amount of money -- probably the same people who are pissed off about contribution a lot more money to a political candidate who lost.

arat sponsorship
LightWizard, blessings for the statement "there is a misconception that producing art is just job". I am retired with income from pension, social security and investments, owing absolutely nothing, etc. etc. I have absolutely no need for income, yet my art work is one of my major reasons for living, not a means for making a living. I know that for many artists it is a desperate attempt to earn a living. But the reality of the art world pretty much insists that they at least supplement themselves by other means. I truly feel for them (the sincere ones, that is) and would, if I were a Bill Gates set up funding sources for them. And I would consider it a truly sacred (and ultimately self-interested) act in doing so.

Nothing really is just a job if it's something you're passionate about (though, indeed, sometimes the most glorious occupation can be boring but, like the pains of childbirth, one tends to forget that part if one cares a lot about the results...!) As for the economics of art, of course the artist and presenter are the ones who are very conscious of what it takes to create it and present it -- in every sense, including economic. But I think many in the public (the "audience") -- often take it for granted, have no idea what it takes in time AND money to develop an artist, get the performance into the theater, mount an exhibit, create an enormous sculpture and drag it to the exhibition site, find a bus and hotel rooms for the chamber orchestra.

"Validation" is a problem (are you valid if you don't sell, aren't well known, etc.). And one of the problems with the NEA was that it became a "validator" -- getting an NEA grant was like winning a Grammy or something and people took you more seriously. A terrible burden for an under-funded arts agency... When I started to get serious as an artist (in Europe), I was stunned at how many arts-connected individuals came forward and helped, not with $$$ but with valuable connections, recommendations, etc. That outreach and those personal contributions like yours, JLNobody, are really important, I think.

LW - This is exactly the point I first commented on. As I said, there is a PERCEPTION in the general public that this is the kind of thing the NEA funds. That perception exists because there have a been a few grants awarded to some people that produced controversial works that got a lot of attention in teh media. Everything else the NEA does takes a back seat to that in the minds of the general public and, to be quite honest, the arts community does a pretty piss poor job of countering that perception.

The community as a whole comes off with a bit of an attitude and is very suggestive that the rest of the populous "just doesn't get it" but the rest of the population gets it quite well. The artists want funding. Great! Nice idea. Now, just like every other item that is publicly funded the artists have to justify to the rest of the populous WHY they should get that funding. As long as the arts community refuses to communicate with the general population they'll continue to have problems getting what they desire.

art
Fishin', I agree that the community of artists must EDUCATE the public if it is to receive its support, cooperation and appreciation. THIS is a fine use of federal funds. Tartarin, I'm afraid your raising of the issue of validation reveals the distance between our perspectives. The critical validation is self-validation, especially in the arts. That is the degree to which the artist finds his work intrinsically valid, i.e., expressive and aesthetically successful. All other sources of validation relate "only" to the extrinsic professional aspect which is clearly secondary to the artistic process itself. I know the extrinsic aspect is important to artists who seek a living from their work, but the intrinsic aspect is likely to suffer to the extent that they work primarily to please the art market. If this sounds excessively idealistic, remember we are talking about art.

JLN, I'm not so sure that "aesthetically successful" holds true in every case. Somebody in a prior post said they appreciate "piss in a jar." Some people may consider that aesthetically successful, but I don't - it has no appeal to me what-so-ever, just like Abuzz in its current form. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people flocking to see that piss in a jar. c.i.

art
C.I., piss in a jar doesn't appeal to my aesthetic or philosophical sensibilities either(nor does most post-modernist art), but does what WE want have much to do with whether or not a work is aesthetically successful for another artist? I'm afraid that art must be approached with the most liberal of attititudes regarding its subjective dimension, otherwise we might as well go the way of Stalinist authoritarian art policies--I know this is an exaggeration, but I'm confident you'll see my point.