Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:50:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1886 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever
> caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't
> cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are you
> envisioning? To a certain extent, a fund like that without an artistic agenda does
> exist, called the NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities).
>
> But as far as deciding "where your $1.50/whatever goes" in the NEA, think of the law
> of averages--for a project like the elephant-dung portrait, the money could just be
> shifted to cover the "lack" from that sector or group. The net result wouldn't be
> any different; it would just add more bureaucracy, because there's no simple or
> efficient way to micromanage tax expenditures for a quarter-billion-plus people.
> What's more effective is to write to the NEA; if they're anything like the NEH, they
> take cogent, reasoned feedback that someone has bothered to target specifically to
> them very seriously. Here's why:
>
> The NEH is a rotating board of prominent scholars and professors who do much of the
> committee work gratis (at least my advisor did it gratis); I'd gather that the NEA
> is much the same, only with a few academics and many seasoned artists (not
> necessarily exclusive categories, granted), also working gratis while doing their
> regular work as well. However, both groups have a veritable quintillion of grant
> applications to go through, and they're looking for *any reason* to thin that number
> out. If they have feedback from the public at large that opposes a particular level
> and type of expression, they'll be less likely to fund it without very serious
> consideration, which is something an NEH/NEA reader isn't going to want to do after
> 12 hours looking at applications. At least the NEH ones are generally well-written;
> I understand that some of the NEA grant proposals are written
> "stream-of-consciousness." That's got to wear really thin after a while. At least
> the NEH gets to throw those out right away.
>
> Anyhow, just an insight into how the NEA probably works--don't know if it helps.
I am not really interested in how the NEA, NEH, etc. work. I don't think
they should be there, period. Any funding to the arts should be through
private organizations. Artists have somehow survived and thrived before
the advent of socialistic bureaucratic federal governments. I for one
would rather have that money go to something that the Founding Fathers
wanted. When you say, oh, well what if they funded x instead of y, I
don't really think it is an issue. I think the real issue is why the
taxpayer has to fund either x or y in the first place. If you want to
make shock art, good art, bad art, etc. Fine. Don't expect me to pay for
it. I do things on my own, and I don't look for government handouts. The
United States was founded on principles and concepts that this does not
fit into.
Scott S.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) True--they thrived, often, through the patronage of aristocrats or crowned heads. It's a different world and the shift has occurred. The NEH and NEA are part of the knowledge-based society we pretend to be. (...) Trying to imagine how the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
