Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:00:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[lpieniazek@novera.]ihatespam[com]
|
Viewed:
|
2302 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> I disagree with the sentiment that suffering creates better art, or that worthy
> art can only be created by those willing to suffer a bit for it.
Good. So do I. Fortunately, that wasn't what I said.
What I said was that if you are not willing to suffer for your art, you
are not a worthy ARTIST, not that your art isn't worthy. I would say
that to be true for any endeavour. If you expect to have everything
neatly packaged up, fogeddaboutit.
I sacrificed to learn my craft and to become successful at it, why do I
have to but artists don't?
> I couldn't find a single reliable source for figures, but in 1998 it seems that
> US art subsidies were around $100 million, but bringing up the defence budget
> <http://www.cdi.org/sc/javaclock.html> it seems that that is spent seven times
> over each day on missiles and other such toys.
And your point is?
The defense budget, in my opinion, could be 10 to 20% of what it is now
and we'd still have an effective defense....
But that's beside the point.
Either subsidising art is wrong, or it isn't. Or do you say that it's OK
to steal, as long as it's not that much? This is black and white here.
It doesn't matter that it comes to 38 cents a day or whatever. To me it
is wrong from both utilitarian (you get bad art) and rights based (it's
not a proper function of government) arguments.
> My point is - why pick on art when there are many more possibilities for
> saving money, many of which don't give as much pleasure as art can?
If it gives you pleasure, YOU fund it... NEA art doesn't give ME
pleasure. Why is your taste to be imposed on me? What gives you the
right to dispose of my property that way? Your gun?
> I also find it peculiar that a country in economic boom should feel beligerent
> towards art in this way.
Dunno about you, but I LIKE art. I think its a shame that good art is
being driven out by bad. But that's what you get when you toss free
money around. Crud. I'm belligerent towards the NEA and the polarizing
effect public funding has on free expression, not towards art.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Aw, Larry, you had me right along with you up till this bit. Well, I'm still mostly with you, but a considerable problem with art today--and this isn't just confined to our fine nation--is the predominant aesthetic trend as much as any dubious (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Fair enough, but I still disagree :) I would say that a worthy artist is one who produces worthy art. I would also suggest that the requirement of any form of suffering or willingness to suffer, on behalf of the artist, is an intellectual one (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I disagree with the sentiment that suffering creates better art, or that worthy art can only be created by those willing to suffer a bit for it. Are some of the amazing LEGO creations and sculptures on LUGNET not examples of worthy art created (...) (25 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
