Should The Federal Government Subsidize Art

JLN, I see it, understand it, but I still don't like it! That's only a "personal" opinion - you understand. c.i.

art
Yes, I understand, C.I.--I don't like it either. But.....

WELCOME to A2k Tartarin and Billbo. Billbo I love Sebastopol in the painting at the site and real life to.

The funding of arts with taxpayer money goes even further than just federal agencies. There are huge tax benefits to collectors who donate art to museums via tax write offs which means that the taxpayer who cannot afford to buy high end art and antiques does not have access to that tax deduction ever. And getting a work accessioned by a major museum requires more that good art it means one must have contacts in that little world of working art historians which is mostly made of curators and professors.

Funding for art is in my opinion necessary because most artists never met with financial success. Many cannot support them selves with the proceeds for the selling of there art. Some do but there are not very many. In any case I put this out there after doing some research for out art chats on the high renaissance. It seems many of the museums I visited especially in foreign countries virtually are mainly supported by their respective governments. And it seems governmental support of art in other countries flows to other genres such as music, writing, and athletics. I think we in the US have been fortunate in having billionaires interested in putting there names on huge buildings or wings of major institutions or the wonderful art we see would not be available to the general public at all.

The subject of what is art well liking it is not even part of the equation for me. I do not like all new art nor do I like all traditional art or all old art. In fact I often see Renoirs of very poor quality hung in museums just because of the name attached to the painting. It is the same for many other great artists - all of their work is not of equal quality but once the reach a certain pinnacle it is like the "Emperor's New Clothes" no one says a word about sloppy painting techniques and poor quality.

And the one has to look at the Eight of 1908 - they came together and managed to find patrons to show there art because they had something to say but the art that they produced was considered not of any cultural value at the time they were painting. Thomas Eakins and his gang (Robert Henri, John Sloan, Steiglitz) are now considered icons of American Art. The same is true of say Gauguin - the poor guy was ridiculed and laughed out of Paris. And many, many people objected to the content of his paintings, I mean really naked women, yikes, how immoral was that. But today we accept these outsiders as great we don't question them.

The Eight of 1908 - Ashcan School

Gauguin - Post Impressionist

Just the opposite, JLNobody! Must not have been clear. The NEA found (of course) that artists (and arts organizations) were creating a hierarchy based on who'd gotten an NEA grant. That had not been the intention of the NEA. What I was saying was: "Validation" is a hairy business -- particularly when it comes from what's effectively a government agency and it's about something as elusive as art! But I'm not sure what you mean by "self-validation." I wonder if you mean strong motivation, commitment, a passionate sense of what you want to say, a love affair with the materials or the instrument or the stage, and finally a finished piece of work which gives you great pleasure. Maybe you mean that moment when you stand back, look and say, "Da*n that's good!" As an artist, one has to have a strong enough sense of self (or as with many legendary artists, cases of booze) to carry one through long periods with no feedback. "Validation" generally connotes some input from another, someone else seeing the results and reacting, expressing interest, experiencing some change in perception or some sign of received communication (or, as happened with the NEA, sending a check). No artist needs upfront approval to create, nor needs to feel threatened without it, but (as it happens in our society, like it or not) interaction creates the opportunity communication and feedback, sometimes that nice little pat on the back which carries you through the next challenge. I don't know any artists who don't find the feedback important. Most artists don't work to please the art market, not good artists, anyway, though they do have to pay rent, eat. In fact I think you've hit the nail on the head when you speak of "the most liberal of attitudes" since that also reminds us that we live in a social and political world, a world dominated by social and political judgments, and artists don't stop being members of society, engaged. In Renaissance Florence, the relationship of artist to patron was a significant one -- and often very fruitful. In a Stalinist society, art was literally dictated in utero by those social and political judgments and became... sterile... not art. In our society, when it's at its best, art is courageous and original. Those who patronize it (as viewers in museums or as collectors) often become as passionately engaged in the creative process as the artist him/herself. The best art leads and changes our perceptions of our world. Each artist sets her or his own rules, develops his or her own language, interprets his or her world. Good original art has serious power. That's what makes many people (and some of the politicans) so wary of it, I think!!

Tartar, Aren't you the raw meat guy? c.i.

art
Tartarin, I appreciate your long and thoughtful response. You understand very well what I mean by "self-validation". I feel like a bit of hypocrite when I pooh pooh the commercial imperatives of the art world because I have no need for an income (not that I'm wealthy), but my independence is not absolute. I feel that I paint primarily for other artists. They are the ones, I feel, who are most likely to appreciate what I've done, am trying to do, and even appreciate my failures. They are, as the sociologists put it, my Reference Group, the ones--or at least their work--who I refer to when I make many artistic decisions

The NEA is no longer fairly administered, so any validation or assistance for artists is no longer democratic. It's selective, which is not the spirit of the organization as Kennedy first saw it. It did kick off PBS and NPR which are still able to survive through viewer contributions, private grants and commercials (!) -- if they depended solely on NEA funds, they'd fold. The commercials are accepted between programs or in short sponsorship announcements at the beginning of the shows and the NEA funding is but a minor part. The arguement offered that other commercial cable channels have programming that supplants PBS programming is obviously not true -- Bravo has deteriorated into reruns and commercials. A & E does the best job as well as Discovery but still not up to the general quality of PBS. Ovation continually repeats the same programs. I don't know if it doesn't need some reorganization as to what its goals are, but the spirit is a noble one. Liberatarians and/or conservatives want to do away with it for ideological reasons, not considering the incredibly small amount that's spent on it. However, some conservatives do want to do away with it because they'd rather spend it on bombs. I rather think it won't buy enough bombs to blow up a one horse town. BTW, don't miss the PBS series coming up, "The History of US."

Heavy reading of the last few pages of this thread - good posts, folks! Makes my thoughts go in several directions, but the one thing I keep coming back to is that many artists create art because that is what they "do", not that it is a product to be validated, or as income-producing, or a way to acquire patronage. As tartarin says, ideas are the power. When the ideas take on power for those beyond the artist, that is the point at which we can consider how best to assist and nurture the art. I'd rather see the "piss in the bottle" than yard art consisting of plywood and painted displays of "Ma and Pa" bending over in the garden.

Another point to keep in mind is that much great art is NOT beautiful to many people. There seems to be a pervasive public assumption that 1. the end three-dimensional product is the ultimate purpose, that 2. artists are generally nuts, that 3. art is a luxury, and 4. that much art is completely unknowable and mysterious to those not educated in art and lastly, 5. that art is supposed to be inspiringly positive and beautiful (with the understanding that 'we all know what beautiful is').

One of my favorite modern artists is Anselm Kiefer, who currently is wonderfully-showcased in the new Ft. Worth Modern Art Museum. There's few that would describe his monumental paintings and sculptures as beautiful, let alone pleasant. His work transends open viewers and creates mind journeys that definitely disrupt one's normal day-to-day walkabouts of the mind. Here are some links:

From Amazon, images from a bookAnselm Kiefer, Daniel Arasse

(this is the direct Amazon link to the book, on sale now for $56+):
Anselm Kiefer (Arasse book, review)

Here are some of his newer installations in Texas. Click on the collections tab for a delightful view of over 100 great modern art works: http://www.themodern.org/

Now, looking at such an artist, who has been one touched by Midas and validated as one among thousands - would this artist be supported by the public, government or any other funding patrons in the US? I highly doubt it. Yet, now that 50 years or so of acclaim has settled in well for him, he will get the income needed to produce and not most other artists that may have work on a par with him, if not better. It's like a rock band "making it" - commercial whims of "what sells", hardly a predictor of classic work. Oh the fad of the moment is.....

So, there would be in my utopian society, a definite place for nuturing artists, whatever their avocation. But, I believe there will never be any sort of equitable, fair, validating, sufficient or productive funding for 'serious' (interesting word, eh?) artists. Now, if only those crazy artists could paint touching nostalgic scenes of hunters round the campfire or perhaps kitties and puppies?

art
Good reading, Cobalt.

Thanks, JL! Every once in a while, I get the impression that I must have contributed something windy and insufferable since suddenly there is a "lull" in the ongoing conversation. Trying not to be pedantic and over-bearing, but still doggedly-perservering to contribute, I surely hope there is something I share that may be of some interest to one of these fine posting folks withing such a good forum. It's a great pleasure to post back and forth and find folks that are intelligent and compassionate enough to withstand and not only withstand, but counter without ridicule fairly-presented views.

This is a bit on the same topic, but there is a concern I have at present concerning US government sponsorship of 'artists'. One of my friends in another continent has posted disturbing news of so-called American authors in other countries who get funding from the US government when they contribute novels, stories, and essays outside of the USA that show Americans in a 'positive light'. Has anyone else within this forum heard of such? I shall post links if necessary, but at present, my curiousity is fixed primarily in wondering if anyone *here* is aware of this US government funding of "the arts" in a clandestine manner?

from
cobalt, hoping she is not suddenly visited by men in black trenchcoats in the middle of the night...

sponsorship
You're welcome Cobalt. No, I've not heard of this program, sounds like an off-shoot of Voice of America. In a long-ago thread on abuzz, some guys heatedly asserted that the WPA and other programs sponsoring the abstract expressionists of New York in the late forties and fifties were encouraging "abstract" work in order to discourage social realist painting that might be critical of American economic and political oligarchies. I think this is nonense, pure conspiracy theory paranoia. But it takes on a bit of plausibility given the Diego Rivera - Rockefeller conflict. I can't, nevertheless, imagine the "irascibles" selling out for so little money.

It would appear that many federal Agencies support Art by giving grants to struggling artists. It think it is important to keep in mind that "art" includes writing, music, dance, photography, and crafts. Antoher important fact is that most of what we know about the history of the ancient world stems from the art work left behind by the the artists of the time. Whether we approve of it public funding of art or even like art the art produced during our life time will define us more than any other aspect of our society.

The State Department Supports The Arts

I believe these are among the programs going to get the knife -- the tax cuts will take care of that.

To subsidize art? Well, if the art becomes dependent on the government, artists lose freedom of creativity. Art in the USSR was heavily subsidized, but authorities demanded in exchange ideologic conformity. And not only: tastes of the rulers were imposed on both the artists and public. Thus Messrs. Stalin or Brezhnev automatically became the chief art critics of the country.
IMHO, complete separation of art and state is essential, first and foremost for the art itself. When the art is subsidized, it becomes servile.

steissd, I fell in love with Russian art when I visited the Tretyakov Art Museum in Moscow. I have photos of many, and will post them in this forum if anybody is interested. c.i.

steissd -- that's the precise controversy going on. The artists and museum curators, among others, are up in arms about the trashing of the First Amendment in trade for some selected artists still getting government grants. There is no seperation of art and state written into the Bill of Rights. When John Kennedy introduced the bill and it was passed, Jackie was very much in charge of how it was administered even if not officially. There were Frank Kline and Robert Motherwell canvasses in the White House! President Johnson wasn't especially enamoured of modern art and they were removed. Gradually, because the can't get the votes to totally do away with NEA, they've done as much as they can to disembowel it and put the exact authortarian controls on it your describing. They should either do it or do away with it. I doubt many of the legislators want to take a chance of getting their free PBS (wonder how many actually send in pledges?)

art
Steiss. Yes, that is a serious danger. But subsidization MAY not, in all cases result in governmental influence on the artistic product. In the case of purely abstract or decorative art, the government will most likely have no interest in the content, because form is its content, not stories or declarations per se. In the case of aggressive regimes like that of Hitler or Stalin, however, abstract art was seen as degenerate because it did not serve the purpose of government. It did not serve the propaganda needs of the regime. In Mexico, the muralists were social realists who had much to say, but much of it was either against the Spanish destroyers of Indian culture or against the Mexican regime of Porfirio Diaz, the long-time dictator against which the 1910-17 Mexican Revolution was waged. In this case the Revolutionary government of Obregon sponsored works by Sigueiros, Orosco, Rivera and others. But there was no coercion here; the philosophy of the govt. and the artists were one.

I did not say that governmental subsidies inevitably lead to submission of art to the agenda of rulers. But such a danger exists. Therefore, I believe that the less such spiritual activities as literature, fine arts, theater, cinema and religion are dependent on authorities, the better is for them.

subsidization of art
Steissd. I was just exploiting an opportunity in your post to make some points. I agree ENTHUSIASTICALLY with your thesis.

BYW, can anyone give me concrete and complete information on how to retrieve a submitted post I lost but which I copied to the clipboard. I can't find instructions anywhere.