US Congress Approves NEA Funding!

what? No interest in this topic? Rats! I hoped it was a good one.

NEA
Notice, Cobalt, that in these belt-tightening times mathematics programs are not being cut back. Whatever contributes to the externally good life, i.e., industry ( engineering, accounting, etc.) is essential; whatever contributes to the internally good life, i.e., the humanities ( literature, history, philosophy, music, visual arts, etc.) are inessential and can be cut back with impunity. It's the culture stupid (not you).

cobalt))))

NEA funding is critical to the survival of visual and performing arts in our nation. Republicans generally find the arts "too liberal" to receive funding, so I am not surprised the funds were "hidden" in another bill. (As you know, most Republicans can't read more than two paragraphs of anything without nodding off! )

My state was the first one to establish a public televison network. Back then, it was called "educational TV." It is facing budget cuts this year. Also, the NEA helps fund our professional state theatre. The Southern Writers Project is an annual search for the best plays by regional writers. Many of these plays would never be mounted without help from state funding and from the NEA.

State funding has already been cut for this theatre. The 2004-2005 season will see fewer plays produced, and, thus, a shortened seasoned for the many artisans of this company.

Yes, funding for all arts is going to be cut, I'm afraid. Many visual artists who have previously received grants for paintings or prints will go unnoticed.

This anti-arts attitude is typical of a Republican presidency. Republicans, generally, don't understand the arts and think Bambi is the best movie ever made.

nea
All my experience convinces me that Republicans are Phillistines, no matter how rich they may be. Now this generalization requires that I apologize to those Republicans who perceive themselves as having "culture". They are exempted IF and only if they are fighting the grotesque cutbacks pursued by the their party fellows.

Interesting comments about the Republicans and generalizations about their interest in "the arts". I can tell you that when I worked in an upscale custom picture framing shop, about 2/3 of the customers were Republican, and most of those who had more money for framing were Republican. Now, to be accurate, I must mention that this county is overwhelmingly Republican. So, what do you think?

Another thing I have noticed is that it seems to me that Republicans tend to prefer photorealism and concrete representational artworks. But, this must be another generalization, right?

See...it WAS an intersting topic; and cut deep down into the politics, of, er, art and money. I would postulate one paranoid view of mine about Republicans and art...and I haven't met one who isn't a total philistine either...they are interested in art, and possibly funding it, but only when they get to control the content of it. They fail to see that this debases the true value and benefit of art.
It's interesting that war gets an open check book too, while humanities..and environmental concerns I might ad; can go to h@ll.
I'm not bi-partisan; I don't put stock in the Dems either; at heart I am libertarian; registered independant, I vote (for Nader last time) and I think the 2 party system is a farce of our liberties.
I am in agreement with the sentiments in this thread; it's just so tiring to be reminded.

bush
Colorific, I agree with your position, but, although I've always admired Nader and his anthropologist, sister, Laura--and with his anti-corporate critique--I do regret his run for office. It is one of the more unfortunate unintended consequences of american political life that every vote for Nader turned out to be an ultimately winning vote for Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rice and their lackey, W. Look at what it's done to America.

JLN, you bring up a point I have been thinking over lately. Since the Democrats seem no better than Republicans, it seems pointless to keep throwing my vote away. In races that are going to be "close", one's vote can be a vote against a candidate, and that is a shame, too. I can understand how younger people may not be interested in voting. I will always vote, if for no other reason than to participate in the process instead of 'dropping out' and complaining.

Too bad that elections are sooooooooo far away.

vote
Cobalt, I do not agree that the two major parties are the same. It is unfortunate that they are as similar as they are, but at present the Republican party is totally atrocious, intolerably so. I do not wish to live in utopia; I DO think that the "best "IS the greatest obstacle to the "better." The latter is all I hope for in politics. While the democrats have shown themselves to be a bunch of weasles lately, they are clearly not as dangerous and rapacious as the Republicans. Ergo, I must vote or accept what happens.

JL:

I respectfully disagree with the "throwing away the vote" concept. I used to think that way, which is I think what "they" want. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party . Period. It doesn't "give" "take away" to or from another candidate. In fact all Nader voters I know were either undecided or unquestionably for him. The undecided votes could have gone Rep or Dem; the sword cuts both ways there. Some of these voters are people who wouldn't vote, and then finally, they feel they have a choice. In the states where he got a significant % of votes, it sends a wake up call to the other parties; therein lies the value of it.
Although no one expected him to win, they feel a third party vote is a cry for the need for more choice, and that further down the road (not 2004 or 08) it will become a reality when more of the Non-voters participate. Does "campaign reform" ring any bells?
Of course if either party puts up a good candidate; I'll vote for that individual. I hope the Dems put up Edwards.
Ah the bitter swill of politics; it's like getting your teeth cleaned; you gotta do it. I guess that's why I am an artist; I used to have this foolish faith that everyone will just "do the right thing"

votes
Very good counter, Colorific. If your impressions are correct, i.e., that most of the Nader voters who were "undecided (based on your personal sample) could have gone either way, Dem or Rep, then you are right and I throw my towel into the ring. But if my equally unsubstantiated assumption is correct, i.e., that most of the undecided would--in the absence of Nader--have preferred the democratic horror over the republican terror, then I am right. Normally, I AM in favor of challenges from strong third parties--I voted for McGovern. The shame of the two parties has been that they think (know, I seems) that they can remain essentially similar (e.g., they can promote pro-corporation interests over that of the majority of citizens) by simply giving the public the illusion that very small, almost cosmetic, differences are significant ones. So, you are in principle right, no doubt about it. But in THIS CASE the results may have been unusually detrimental to the country. THIS president is worse than any republican in memory (even Nixon and Reagan). He is a menace of new proportions. He and his crew of puppeteers are monsters.
I'd better stop before I have an aneurysm.

It should be noted, I think, that while NEA funding was being attacked during the Reagan years the tax break for collector donating to public museums was really opened up. In addition, it was during this time that the famous "tax shelters" were created that were ultimately found to be not legal under tax law these tax shelters would be limited edition prints, kiwi fruit farms in Texas, and Master Recording, etc. In addition, during the 80s the Commissioner of the IRS' wife, an artist who is shown in the Philadelphia Museum of Art was really campaigning for art and supporting the NEA. The Commissioner and his wife were both Republicans. So it is my opinion that when it come to art party affiliation is not key but religious affiliation and in "the religious right".

art
Joanne, thanks for some good info. I am forced to acknowledge that my statement about the Republicans is a statistical generalization (and an impressionistic one at that); there are clearly exceptions, e.g., the IRS commissioner's wife. But my generalization still "feels" right; it's true to all my experience (and I agree it's only MY experience) that most conservative (notice this new qualification) republications will allocate education funds for courses that benefit business over those that would benefit the spirit of humankind--the arts and humanities.

You are right JLN, for years I have believed that those in the arts tend to be more liberal and accepting of other people's point of view.

arts
....or disdainful of everyone's viewpoint.

Except for those of the extremly wealthy.

Carry on with your discussion...but I would like to drop this in.
The only radio I listen to is NPR. We endured our local station's recent semi-annual fund drive (making our contribution, of course).
They said that 55% of their revenues came from donors like me, 30% from corporate sponsors and 15% FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Why should the government fund NPR, and why would NPR want government money? Thanks.

radio
Realjohnboy, are you referring to the editorial power government might have over NPR? I understand that, but what about corporate editorial power? I'm not sure that government has wanted or tried to exercise such power over public radio, nor have corporate sponsors. The latter do not advertise to speak of. Both sectors contribute either for political (gov't) or tax purposes (corp.) reasons. Please correct me if that's wrong--anybody. I'd like to get the facts straight here.

JLNobody...I don't think NPR is beholden to any editorial pressure from corporate underwriters or government grants. NPR has, in my opinion, a "liberal" bias, but that is not pertinent to this discussion.
The issue I am raising is purely economic and is related to the original topic posted at the top re NEA funding.
NPR's coverage of Iraq is as good as any of the commericial networks. So why is NPR partially supported by taxpayers?

NEA opponents might argue by extension that if you are a theatre group or a talented individual artist, why would you need or want
government money? -johnboy-