Subject: Food for thought.
From: hazelrah55@aol.com (Hazelrah55)
Date: 1998/08/11
I've got a question for everyone, well accually it's a couple of questions.
Should the government fund the Arts?
a) If the government does fund the Arts, should they be able to deny an
individual, or group, those funds because of indecent words, or actions?
b) If the government does fund the Arts, how should they decide who gets those
funds? Should it be based on need, merit, or something else?
Tony Petrangelo
From:"queequeg" quee_Hi There_queg@enter.net
Date:1998/08/11
I have few questions of my own. Do you mean should the U.S. Federal Government
(or any government that currently does fund the arts) continue to fund the
arts? And by Arts, do you mean fine arts only-- such as writing and painting--
or also include the performing arts?
I think that if the U.S. Government (or any gov't) is going to fund the arts,
that said gov't. should be aware of what it is getting into from a cultural
perspective. Point 1-- almost a given-- most artists are not what one would
call *politically, religiously, or societally* "conservative." Many, in fact
are outcasts for the plain and simple reason that they are (*gasp*) artists.
If a government is going to willingly fund such miscreants, said government
should not be offended by the outcome of that funding; especially in the United
States which is oh-so-self-righteous about it's Bill of Rights (which
guarantees freedom of speech, and as the Supreme Court has stated, that extends
into freedom of expression which does not involve coercion of, or direct
involvement in, violent acts).
Personally, I say, "NO" the government should not fund the arts, because then
we don't have to worry so much about censorship. Remember the whole Robert
Maplethorppe incident? Don't get me wrong, I love all artforms and most
non-violent expressions of *whatever*, but I think government involvement
inevitably results in a powerful body of people dictating what is and is not
acceptable to the American people. Whether or not *I* personally enjoy
someone's artwork, etc. seems to be irrelevant to that political body, and THAT
pisses me off. If I want to see or buy someone's art, I will do so based on
the fact that I enjoy it.
These same people probably would have said (and I'm sure that some of them do
say) that the works of Michelangelo are disgusting and obscene, even though
most of his work was funded by the Catholic Church.. that oh-so-wholesome
bastion of integrity and good taste.
queg___
Subject:Re: Food for thought.
From:Lars Reinton lars.reinton@commaxx.no
Date:1998/08/11
Being that I live in Norway, a country where the government funds arts
in most forms, I feel I should warn about the dangers of governmental
funding. In Norway, every author who get to publish a "serious" book,
fiction or non-fiction, automatically gets paid about $10000. The
publisher also gets money for every book published. The same thing goes
for most other artforms, including movie-production, music-production
and paintings.
The problem, of course, is the people appointed to consider what should
be funded. Some of them are jerks with no understanding for art, but
that's not the real issue. Who, really, can be objective on the subject
of art and quality? Is it possible to place art in an economic
perspective?
The result, of course, is that the "artists" arse-licking the government
end up with the dough, and the real artist, who don't wanna sell out,
turn out much worse than they would had it not been for the funding.
They could end up not being published because the publisher is afraid
the work of art won't get funded.
Subject: Re: Food for thought.
From: eccles9697@aol.com (Eccles9697)
Date: 1998/08/11
Government funding = government control, which we DO NOT WANT, because the
whole idea of art is to be somewhat contrary to that sorta establishment.
Dagny
Subject: Re: Food for thought.
From: hazelrah55@aol.com (Hazelrah55)
Date: 1998/08/11
>Government funding = government control, which we DO NOT WANT, because the
>whole idea of art is to be somewhat contrary to that sorta establishment.
Now I'm confussed. I always thought that Art was about expressing yourself,
your thoughts, feelings, and emotions. If what you said above is true, that
means that only anti-establishment types can be Artists. I thought anyone
could be an Artist.
Also, Government Funding doesn't always equal government control. First of all
this is a capitalist society, so if the government doesn't want to fund you
based on indecency, you can probably go somewhere else. Second of all, look
at Chrysler. Back in the 70's the government gave them a huge loan. The
government doesn't control Chrysler, anymore then they control Ford, or GM.
The reason that I origionaly asked this question, is because as you all know,
our government does fund the Arts, yo an extent. And recently there was a case
in the supreme court, where the government refused funding based soly on the
premise that the (i don't remember exactly what it was, but I think it was
preformance art) was indecent. The supremem court then said that was okay. It
wasn't an infringement on there first ammendment rights, because the government
wasn't saying you can't do that, they just said we wont fund that.
Tony Petrangelo
Subject: Re: Food for thought.
Date:Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:50:03 GMT
From:lukacs@dds.nl (Lucas Scheepmaker)
Art for who's sake?
Should the government fund the arts? To my humble opinion there's a
difference between 'the arts' and 'the artist' in question.
The arts should be accessible to everyone interested in it. The
government should stimulate its citizens to, from time to time, do
something else then eating, working, sleeping and watching T.V.
Why? Because no one else is able to do that in a structural fashion.
Concerning the evaluation of the content of the artistic product,
there are no laws on good taste. Censorship should restrict itself to
the question whether or not the product of an artist seems to be a
potential element of our cultural heritage, and not answer the
question "is it good, decent, etc.".
Without government funding the only thing you will get is
middle-of-the-road art and the music for millions that doesn't
(anymore) do what it should do: question our lives and existence.
Making mistakes is an everyday routine, to gloss over
them is the big mistake.
Lucas Scheepmaker (lukacs@dds.nl)
Subject:Re: Food for thought.
Date:Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:59:25 +1000
From:"Casey" KC@Jones.com
An interesting and curly question. It seems to me that there should be more
ways to keep score than who makes the most money. If money is the sole
defining arbiter then Stephen King is obviously a much better writer than
Kurt Vonnegut.
Is it not possible that governments should concern themselves with at least
funding art forms that are deemed to be worthy and yet do not attract
funding dollars from the public in sufficient amounts to keep them viable.
Examples of this range from certain aboriginal arts which may be lost
forever if governments did not finance those practitioners who keep them
alive, to opera or symphony orchestras which are very expensive,
underpatronised at times and yet the city's symphony orchestra is in many
areas a mark of community pride, even amongst non enthusiasts.
Who decides? In a representational democratic system you elect people who
presumable make these decisions in a wise and unselfish manner. In
non-democratic societies what does it matter, the people have no say in it
anyway.
A more pressing problem for citizens of the United States should be to focus
not on the pittance spent on the arts, but to ask yourself why you are
shooting into the sky a 2 billion dollar firecracker. This money is lifted
directly out of the pockets of the same churchgoing public that squawks like
cut cats if their "tax dollars" are being spent on immoral art that has such
nastiness as bad words and nudity.
You should be asking your government how much of that 2 billion dollars
landed into the pockets of those who are influential in the decision making
process. Americans have been fleeced by their government for years because
of a heavily cultivated fear of foreigners that allows the military
industrial complex to have carte blanc with your money.
By the way, I didn't really mean it when I said that Stephen King is a
better writer than KV.
CASEY
Subject: Re: Food for thought.
Date:13 Aug 1998 05:22:24 GMT
From: jessef1016@aol.com (JesseF1016)
Just a little anecdote about government funding of the arts:
I used to live in Brookline, MA, which is considered to be arguably the most
liberal town in the country. (To keep this on NG topic, I believe KV's son's
family was at one point a neighbor of mine... in fact, I think KV's grandson
currently attends high school with contemporaries of mine in Brookline.)
Anyway, back a few years ago, when I used to live there, there was a
controversy, as an artist was comissioned by the govt to create a WALK/DON'T
WALK traffic light in a part of the town known as Brookline village. She ended
up producing a word-free light portraying the sillouhette nude woman and her
young son... I think the WALK was the woman pushing her son ahead to walk, and
the DON'T WALK was her restraining him. Anyway, it was a locally controversial
at the time because some people thought it was a frivolous way for the town to
spend money, and others felt the nudity was inappropriate. I personally
objected to the sign because I couldn't really tell which one was supposed to
be WALK and which was supposed to be DON'T WALK.
