On Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:04 PM QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > Not such a big deal but our tax dollars are supporting such "art." Of
> > course, this goes for genuine art too. I don't think anyone should be
> > forced to support it. And for those who might think I lack compassion
> here,
> > I not only buy art (from prints to CDs to poetry books), I do frequent
> > museums, theaters, cinemas, galleries, and concerts. So I support it
> > already. I also see lots of other people doing the same. Granted, I'm
not
> > feeding starving artists, but I do my part. Nothing to brag about,
just
> > trying to disarm the highly vocal libertarian-bashers.:)
>
> Golly Gee Billy Bob, is that ther plaster mule a piece of Gen-yoo-ine Art?
>
> Basher though you think I be, my tax dollars do not support much of the
art
> these days, believe me. The plug has been pulled. Educational art
programs?
> yes. Community Outreach programs for impoverished youth? OK. Inner city
> revitalization through public performance? Sure...
The NEA budget has hardly changed. I believe they trimmed $1 million off a
$200 million budget. Whoa! Big, deep cuts!
> (If its generously matched
> by ten thousand dollars from Sprint, Dole, Citicorp, Budwieser and the
> Amanson Foundation). But art as Art? Artists making Art? Money for an
> ack-tchoo-al artiste, paid to create? noooo....
> Not any more.
But a lot of artists have always gotten little money for their work. Van
Gogh, as we probably have all heard heard, only sold one painting in his
entire life. But this is only looking at one art: painting. Poets, to use
another type of artist, usually don't make a lot of money off their poetry,
but usually turn to teaching and translating to make money. (Robert Howard
is one recent example of this. He teaches at Columbia and translates French
literature.)
> And art is the better for it, IMHO. If I think YOU have a narrow idea of
what
> "genuine art" is- imagine what I think of the NEA's ever narrowing, narrow
> viewpoint!
> Urk.
The NEA's viewpoint, whether narrower or wider, is not germaine in this
vein. What is is that it uses other people's money forcibly taken to fund
whatever it likes or thinks the rest of us should like.
> I don't feel forced to pay taxes,
Stop paying them and see if there is no force used against you.
> I like paying taxes, I like to live in my
> world of free busses, free roads, free schools, good security and public
> parks and beaches.
It's not free if you're paying for it.
> Money well spent. I wish I could put more of it towards sculpture gardens
> instead of guns.
I would not disagree, but each person should be allowed to choose what he or
she funds -- and not be forced by someone who thinks he or she knows better.
> Hey ... but I don't feel that in REALITY Art benefits from National money,
in
> fact in it's heyday the NEA seemed to generate worse art each year.
> Eventually the system bottomed out and shit hit the fan with the NEA four.
If
> you want MY take on that, e-mail me privately, since it involves people I
> know.
I think it funds a little of everything, though the amounts are so trivial,
but I think the reason would be artists and the like chase after NEA dollars
is the legitimacy it conveys.
> FYI: Most of the money for public art comes from private funding. Rich
folks.
I know.
> Philanthropically minded folks with more money to spend than they know how
to
> spend it. Only a tiny bit of the money comes from your taxes (assuming
you
> live in the United States) and 99% of 1999 endowments for the arts was
> directly from grants: Corporate funders, family trusts, estate endowments
and
> the like.
I know, but any is too much when force is involved. If some people want to
pay for abstract paintings, great. Fine by me. Just don't take money from
those who would rather not.
And outisde the US, conditions are much different. In 1989, the National
Gallery of Canada in Ottawa spent $1.8 million Canadian for a Barnett Newman
"painting." The creative, mind opening feature of this painting? A
vertical red stripe between two blue stripes! Yeah, this sounds like the
cutting edge of artistic evolution.
> They are less controlling than Uncle Sam, but not by much.
Hey, it's their money. At least, I don't have to pay for it. However, this
doesn't mean I can criticize how they spend it.
Plus, I think a variant of Gresham's law applies here: fake art drives out
real art. One problem with this culture of non-art being treated as art is
a lot of promising art work is ignored or languishes in the basements and
wharehouses of museums. (Most public museums in America do not display all
their works in stock, unlike the Louvre.)
And, of course, just because someone is paying for it, doesn't make it art.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:48 MDT