Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 05:11:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2374 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> I argue that art is a human right, or more generally a persons environment • has
> a direct affect on their psychological and physiological balances.
Ooh, even before I got better, I would never have supported this...
> 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.
I used to have this opinion. My feeling now is that anything worthwhile that
the government does in the realm of social programs, WILL be provided in
some fashion in a Liberatopia. I know right now people do chose which town
to live in based on the schools, libraries, and museums that town has. That
means the do chose to spend their money to get social programs they want,
however, I also see that the Libertarian ideal of doing this by the
individual making direct choices as to where to put their money rather than
handing the responsibility for the decision making to the government (and I
think that is the core of the problem with government spending, that the
average citizen is not, and can not be, very involved in the actual decision
making of how to spend the money).
If I had to guess, I bet Larry would spend more money on museum and library
memberships than the share of his taxes which go to those programs (Larry -
sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth - this is my gut feel based on what
you have talked about). I probably would also (though I've been too lazy to
actually figure out what I should put money into, I do chose to put money
into programs I see value in, even some that I'm not getting very much from
[Rails to Trails comes to mind immediately. I've taken one bike ride on a
Rails to Trails trail, and so much enjoyed it, and valued the idea, that I
have continued to contribute money, yet I have not since used a trail]). I
personally would actually welcome the responsibility to chose where to spend
my money, then I'd actually get off my duff and do something, and almost
certainly end up contributing above average. The one place I know I
contribute above average compared to my peers is my church, which is the one
place which has connected with me deep enough to grab the attention, but if
I can no longer afford to be lazy and let the government spend my money,
I'll have to decide to contribute to charity and museums and libraries and
such.
> Would scrapping government art subsidies would catalyse corperations to • provide
> public art on the same scale?
Why depend on corporations? Join a museum, gallery, or other program to
support the kind of art you want to see. In fact, is it really the right
thing for corporations to even spend money on? Right now it is, because
corporations can spend the money pre-tax, which increases the effect of the
money they spend, but take away the tax junk, and that incentive goes away,
on the other hand, the stock holders will be making more money, and thus
will have more money to give. Don't worry, they (the biggest stockholders)
will spend plenty of it on art (after all, the basic cost of living should
not be that much higher for them, so in some sense, all the money they spend
beyond a certain point is actually being spent on art - and don't worry,
they'll share, rich people like to show off their stuff...).
> > > 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've thought a little about the meaning of our right to bear arms. I'm
thinking that it's being misrepresented. I think the true meaning is not
that we can run around and "protect" ourselves. I think it is an expression
that our rights are so absolute, and that the individuals responsibility to
society is so absolute, that we as a society trust the individual with
anything. I think this trust and freedom is why our country has played such
an important role in the modern world.
Our world view point is a hard one to understand if you have not be raised
within it. I think it's even hard for most of us who are raised in it to
understand. I feel I have been blessed by my parents and teachers (not just
school, all of lifes teachers) somehow communicating this to me. One rock
that I stand on is understanding this world view is my religion, which I
have come to understand presents the same life affirming view that Larry
talks about so often. I'm also at a loss to how to fully explain this view,
and I have had problems fully explaining the principles of my religion
(Unitarian Universalist for those who care).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
