art
Johnboy, it seems that one of the unfortunate facts of life is that the higher the quality of news programs, artistic production, or musical performance the less likely it will survive economically. A rock and roller will make a fortune where an outstanding classical music quartet will have to do other things on the side to make a living. And I know wonderful artists who do not have a sufficiently sophisticated market to appreciate their work, but that market WILL put out money for the kitsch trash of Thomas Kincaid.
Realjohnboy PBS, televeision and NPR, radio were founded by the NEA in 1965. Below are links to information about the NEA, PBS, and NPR.
National Endowment For The Arts
Public Broadcasting Stations/National Public Radio
I have been on the fly, but watching the dialogue; regressing a few points here....JL, ( RE: Nader voting) You are , I think right, in that without Ralph, more voters on the fence would have gone the Gore rout; however I still know many who would have gone Bush; or not have voted at all; I myself was so disgusted with the whole media charade I was completely fed up and probably would have resorted to hanging a sign out side on election day " No one's home; do not disturb...Game over.."; although I may have, in a disgusted frnzy of "civic duty" (I never voted during the Reagan years) ripped the lever down in favor of Gore..choosing the "lesser" of 2 evils (something I do not give the dignity of calling "choice") on account of his environmental issues; he did have several determining factors in his favor.
Joanne: Re: Republicans "economic empathy" towards artists/culture; you raised the valid point about ( oops; what's the wife's name...helping enact the tax break for the art donor?).
What sort of enrichment is it? A TAX BREAK for a donation....no doubt will help some poor needy struggling artist right? Hmmm...those tax breaks, to no doubt a wealthy individual; "cleaning house' with their large collection (probably the work of a dead artist) does not help any artist trying to survive today; it helped some rich person save a few bucks on their tax return under the guise of "supporting" the arts.
I personally see such policies as a farce. Even if they truly wanted to 'support" a museum; they'd give the museum, and their employees tax breaks, and throw some cash at them to meet the inequitable financial demands that have arisen out of our our distorted "free-market' economy...because of the educational function/quality of life purpose they serve, mostly our high-pressured inner cities; and stop condescendeing to them as "tourist-magnets" whose purpose is to generate cash for budget balencing to make some politician look as if he/she is doing an adequate job.
Things are what they are; and I have never never never, out of the roster of nearly 200-250 artists I have met in the past 2 years met an artist who said "wow; I'm so happy our government and the generous wealthy of this fine country were there in my dire struggles to help me through"
This is why there is so much junk produced; this is the type of work that gets reinforced; Thomas Kincaid is there becouse he is the product of a "free-market" economy whose art-buying public is uneducated, shallow, and haven't been encouraged to learn from the museums and have had their art-education programs slashed (this in a country where most high-school grads read and write poorly) and thus have no real "taste" for what is culturally refined; or do i dare say; umm, "relevant!!". So make a few bucks; put a Kincaid; or Fazzino; or who ever, in the dining room.
Some art savy buyers show up at the large Expo-fairs, in Miami/NY/ where-ever else and get art directly from artists; but these fairs are funded by artists, and galleries, who can barely afford to participate because of the huge "rent"
So why doesn't our culturally enlightened gov do something like support an art fair to give struggling artists a leg up; and ACTUALLY encourage what would be 'free-market" art; so that even the public would have a full range of choice; instead of hiding behind the lameness of granting a tax break to some rich individual who gives away an old artwork to a museum?
I think politically; support for the arts needs desperately to translate into the public conscience as loosely "life-giving support" to actual artists, to enable the production of (serious) art and reach the public at large; and not some half-baked excuse for arts funding under the guise of tax breaks to rich people. Artists are still the highest educated poorly paid individuals in the nation; what does that say?
Gee; I might get JL"s aforementioned anyerism.
Lastly to the question posed by Johnboy; why should (arts organizations/cultural instutions) or you mentioned public radio, be funded with taxpayer money? Aside from the obvious quality of life issues; because of this reality between the relation of our economic system; democratic values, politics; and the development of legitimate art (and this goes for science too.)....
Ready...here goes....
A capitolist-free market economy rewards only short ranged commercial goals (or indusrial ones with high yielding profits; er; monoplolies; ick). ( as modeled by our wacko stock market) AND, our politicians only enact and support issues that are short ranged, coinciding with their short lived political terms. Their main interest is to getting re-elected, and not look down the road towards long-range issues, like culture, environment, et al.; so their is this tendancy to avoid watching the subtle "tumor growing" that is the degeneration of our culture (remember...art reflects the values of it's society!!!); and our environment. Somewhere a really brave consensus of voters/politicians would fess up and say; "okay let's stop this streamling of policy and economics for the purpose of industry alone; let's actually think of the quality of life of the people"....simple; archaic argument first concieved by Plato.
And back to why [Artists...loosely here] should be funded {and scientists too} BECAUSE this is LONG-RANGE work;
Great art takes years to develop and doesn't fit into the capitolist paradigm; as does great science; it takes years to produce legitimate work of vaue, and thus the process should be supported if we, as a culture, wish to make progress and look beyond our short-range immediate sensations; and actually should decide to THINK about what we hold as our culural standards. (Recall Thomas Edison...who got no support; but struggled and suffered to invent a lousy light bulb; he damn near went under; yet his work benefitted EVERYONE! He should have had a grant gift-wrapped! Twice!)
It just drives me nuts; but if tomorrow some one puts out a nasty rap song that denounces mother mary elephant dung cop shooting swear words; people start crying "WHAT happened to our cultural values!!!WHAAA"
What happens is , as a society, we voted them down. Period. You get what you pay for. Wanna hear the music? Gotta pay the fiddler.
If we no longer want to hear the music, let's start throwing people we don't like in the ring with some lions. That might be original.....AND you know who will be in the back row with his easel: hey; pssssst... I'm a democratic guy who wants to reflect the times I live in.
Sorry for the typos, I'm sure are many; and ; my sympathy for the headache you got reading through all of this.
Signing off my soap box; Cordially; your pal in the war of free-expression
Sheeeeeze, cobalt,
When I saw your topic, I thought you were referring to The National Education Association.
America is a nation of abbreviations.
Now we know where the term "starving artists" came from.
The voting booth is not the place to make a statement. I learned that the hard way, after voting for Ross Perot. For those of you interested in third party candidates, have at look see at their success:
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
'course as Sealpoet once said, What do I know. I live in Florida.
thanks for the link Letty; so many parties, so little time
Colorific wonderful essay. It reminds of a little story about a friend's daughter. Kelly was a NYC model and had a date one evening with a guy who took her to a gallery opening. Kelly says she got her wine and sat down to watch the crowd feeling a little uneasy as she did not know much about art. Kelly said the room was empty except for a group of chairs one of which she was sitting in. Finally she asked her date where is the art and he apparently replied you are sitting in it!
This is taken mostly from the late Marvin Harris, an Anthropologist who had opinions (and a lot of important observations) on everything. He noted that there are two broad definitions of art. The first found in traditional cultures in utilitarian and artistic production comes out of the activities of every day life, pot making, weaving wood working etc. many of these objects end up in contemporary art, or natural history museum but their original function was quite mundane. The second is a political definition (in the broad sense) and is the product of complex societies such as our own. Here art was originally sponsored by state institution, such as the church, the government, or elite's wishing to demonstrate their status and power. But with industrialization, beginning in the 18th century, power centers became more defuse and this allowed artist to become more independent and individualistic. The pursuit of "art" became a goal in and of it's self. This made artistic production more like literature and it could and did (in some cases) become a medium for exploring and criticizing cultural norms, politics even to challenge the core elements of a culture's world view. Republicans, mostly conservative, and the religious right are aghast at this independence and don't feel that should be paying with public monies for something that makes them uncomfortable (and makes them think). I think that this is the underlying cause of the current assault on public arts funding. As the arts are no longer singing the praise of those who fund them. And as they continue to demand the right to an independent point of view . The government is no longer going to feel the need to support them. I would argue that this independence is critical to a healthy democratic society, but it comes at a price
Funny Joanne; see, sometimes art isn't just relegated to the role of 'wall furnature" it can actually BE furnature!
Aquiunl: That's a very logical and reasonable perspective on the purpose and role of art and how, since the industrial revolution art has changed, politically as well as socially. What it strives to serve in terms of individualism is at a huge variance to what the "world of political funding" would impose as it's purpose.
Thanks
Unfortunately, propaganda is also an art form.
I'm an archaeologist and we work on the assumption that a lot of the art of early civilizations is propaganda for the ruling elite, especially architecture. But much of it is also very good artistic expression. The Mayan work is particularly good in my opinion.
True, and the point of modernism is that we supposedly grew beyond mere propaganda; and particularly serving elitist value systems of the wealthy. somehow, as a mirror of democracy, an artist should, like a voter, have control over content.
the mid-19th C salon emphasize "Academic' values, though elitist, had grown from the didactic nature of religious art, and academic "rejects" turned toward nature defering art content to forces beyond politics and money. In this regard, i have always believed the Hudsonriver School to be quite advanced, infusing the freedom of the new world witha devoted respect toward the purityof nature. Out of this, stylisitically and spiritually, came the social realists, another champion of American painting standards, deliberately devoid of elitist politicing. To me, standard's born from declaratrions of liberty, religious/[political freedom, and love of the "new Land" have been bastardized by artists and gallery system alike. With regards to our own American domestic cultural standards I wish them to be preserved and respected.
nea
Well, Nobody's home again. Great comments folks. The obvious just occurred to me: Funding restrictions (for NEA) amounts to a kind of "soft" censorship (censorship because the gov't withholds on the basis of its disapproval of certain projects, programs and policies), but it is--while egregious--so much better--or less horrendous--than the "hard" forms of censorship seen in Stalinist Soviet Union. We CAN paint and write as we wish if we are willing to suffer the economic costs of doing so. At least it will not cost us outright fines or imprisonment. But I wonder how long this will be the case with the likes of Ashcroft holding power. Think ACLU, among other things.
