Have you tried "Ctrl+V" to retrieve the clipboard contents? It must work if you have not rebooted the computer after having saved something to the clipboard and did not save there anything else after the posting you mentioned.
feds
steissd, but where do I go to put in Ctrl V ?
In the "Quick Reply" box.
Well, Bush has cut the hell out of it...
I think the problem with the NEA is that the people in charge of distributing funds don't know about art. I have read plays I would rather have stabbed myself than gone to see that were funded by the NEA. I think it actually hurts the art community to see funds distributed to people who are undeserving and untalented. I would approve of the NEA, if it's financial distribution were in the hands of competent people.
You've hit at the center of the problem, Portal Star. But it's not the competence of the people which is really in question (they are usually highly competent), it's that the process is inherently undemocratic -- so that you don't really have a say if you disagree with the outcomes. A favorable majority opinion about art doesn't mean it's good or a "keeper" any more than a favorable minority opinion does. Manet and Velasquez aren't superb because thousands of Americans pour into a special exhibit of their works and ooooh and aaaah. That stunningly incomprehensible off-off-Broadway piece that bored me to death last night isn't bad because there were three people there and the only one who saw it through to the end was bored stiff. The NEA has a foot in each situation and it is assailed on all sides by politics; no wonder it staggers!
Actually, I think in light of a recent government reading, I change my opinion. The government has no business in social programs. That sort of government involvement is left over/evolved from FDR's new deal, which was unconstitutional but needed at the time to get us out of depression. The government should be way deregulated, as it is not a good business system (look at the inefficiency of the post office, for example) and I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for the government's art choices.
I'm all for independent art funding, or charity groups. I love the fullbright (is that government sponsored?) But as much as I would like the money, the U.S. government shouldn't be involved in charity or business. Leave that to the socialists.
Well for starters, as you know (I think?), the government doesn't make the art choices. The NEA is an "independent agency" funded by Congress (members of which, latterly, have tried to kill it). It is overseen by a citizen board. The people who make the funding decisions are pretty well chosen people from various fields, top of their profession. The head of the agency is a manager with some input into the process of choosing -- some influence, of course. The grants largely go to groups, institutions -- I think individuals no longer get grants directly from the NEA -- in states and each state arts agency has input into that process. The state agency is made up a professional (each in his field) staff, overseen by a citizen board from that state which is appointed by that state's governor, and panels in each field whose panelists are professional artists and arts administrators from that state. In that way, the state agencies mimic the National Endowment's structure, and vice versa. There are cooperative regional organizations formed by the states as well. So it's a very wide-spread, rather populist network. I was close enough to it to note with interest that artists and institutions who don't get grants get thoroughly pissed off and dismissive of the Endowment, but their attitudes changes overnight if they or their organization is successful in securing a grant! C'est la vie.
Remarkably little money comes from the taxpayer these days. That money was always meant to be "seed money," money granted to give someone or something a good start towards getting money from elsewhere -- foundations, business, community organizations.
I go back and forth on whether such an agency should still exist -- I say "still" because when it started (Nancy Hanks) it was wonderful, a great inspiration, and can be thanked warmly for the growth of interest in and respect for art in schools, rural communities, in cities other than New York or Boston or Philadelphia or Los Angeles! Great museums and orchestras dot this country, thanks in large part to our early 1960's "ministry of culture." But I think its day is over -- the job is done. More people than ever participate in arts events, go to museums, etc. We got the business community enthusiastic about funding arts organizations and institutions -- in return for tax deductions. So I admire the NEA and will be respectful at its funeral, but glad to see it put out of its pain.
