Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 02:00:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 we like to impose upon the artist. As then it elevates the
stature of the artist and endows the work with a greater significance.
Personally I wouldn't regard say the Parthenon any less if I found out that the
architect had a really easy life being fed grapes from beautiful servants, and
he wasn't really interested in architecture but had gone into it as he had been
to scrawny to be a gladiator anyway.
> 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 agree that showing willingness to suffer for a belief or endeavour gives you
greater kudos, but it shouldn't be a requirement. You choose to sacrifice,
therefore that responsibility is yours alone? (1)
> > 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.
True - I was reacting to the "lets ban Art subsidies" sentiment rather than
whether Art subsidies are a good thing or not. The point that there are other
good things to cut is true, but irrelevant to the issue.
> 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)
This seems to be down to who is choosing how and where to spend the money?
There are good artists out there, who would produce good art if funded.
> and rights based (it's not a proper function of government) arguments.
Depends how you are centered.. <http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml> tells me
that I'm a left-liberal :)
I argue that art is a human right, or more generally a persons environment has
a direct affect on their psychological and physiological balances.
IMO Governments role should be to fulfil human needs which wouldn't otherwise
be satisfactorily covered by corperate movements. Ie. if Microsoft sponsered
artists produced enough good works of public art etc, then I wouldn't see any
reason for the government to waste public money to do the same.
Would scrapping government art subsidies would catalyse corperations to provide
public art on the same scale?
> > 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?
No way, I'm not an American.. no guns here :)
> > 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.
I agree that the way public money is spent on art holds plenty of room for
improvement, but not that it should be scrapped altogether.
Richard
(1) I have been reading up some of www.lp.org, so let me know if I'm
misinterpreting it all :) (2)
(2) Incidentally, are there any better sources of information about Libitarian
policies? I'm sure that I agree with some of it and disagee with others, I'm
curious to know which is which though!
|
|
Message has 15 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) has (...) Ooh, even before I got better, I would never have supported this... (...) otherwise (...) sponsered (...) any (...) I used to have this opinion. My feeling now is that anything worthwhile that the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) A community I lived in for a while didn't have access to a public library, because the majority (but not an overwhelming majority -- something like 60%) of the people who lived there didn't want to pay the few cents in taxes to join the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) So just because your dad happened to build a house somewhere, you think the whole world should bow down and provide all the "niceties" of life, regarless of whether the location your dad built his house on (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <Fo04xr.MoE@lugnet.com> <slrn87djsf.fag.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Not at all. Not all value can be as easily judged as the operating budget of a library. But if your property (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <3876E1AE.144F396A@voyager.net> <slrn87dqa8.j61.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You're right, I jumped in the middle and didn't check assumptions first. Fuggedaboutit. Frank's doing fine (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) the (...) sensible (...) more (...) I posted a message to RTL that said, WTB 4558, 4536, 4547, 4549, 4554, 2150 in boxes or sealed. Unfortunately, I can't afford them all right now. Will you buy them for me? (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
