Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:16:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1914 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
> > 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.
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.
> 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.
Trying to imagine how the "Founding Fathers" (which is a very loaded term, because it means
overwhelmingly "upper-class white males") would have wanted things is fraught with
trouble. I'm not opposed in principle to what you're suggesting, just saying that it's not
likely to happen--and let's be honest, how many people are like you or I and want to spend
the time to look at where all of their tax monies are going and make the individual
decisions, when they can't even be bothered to vote? I know that the stock response is
that they *would* vote if they felt their voices would make a difference, but I don't
agree.
I know what you're getting at--"let's get rid of this entire government apparatus for the
arts"--but only the forum and the funds are government. The point is that the people
making the decisions are *not* part of the government, beyond their possible affiliation
with public educational institutions (although most are with private ones, which are
patently controlled by private finance), and they're not being remunerated for their work.
The NEA also makes a convenient target because of its status as a government agency, but I
would posit that the vast majority of grants given to artists *overall* are in fact
originated in the private sector--be it from private universities, bequests, museums
themselves, or wealthy patrons. The dollar amounts can never be known for certain because,
by their very nature, private funding isn't publicized. The private funding, however,
generally goes to "safe" arts--there is often little available for people who really want
to create something original, or who have talent but just don't have the social
"connections" to get big private grants.
Government has funded the arts in some fashion for centuries upon centuries. We only
*think* it's new, because we place it in this context where a single human being is no
longer identified with it as "patron." (A good example is France's shift from Royal to
Republican patronage in the 19th century.) The goal of organizations like the NEA is to
advance the idea that the US actually *has* a culture--something much of the world believes
doesn't exist beyond McDonald's, Star Wars, and Disney World.
> 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.
The broadness of this statement is always troubling to people in the arts and the
humanities. It's usually given as a rationale when a University wants to take monies away
from the "cultural literacy" programmes (art, history, literature, philosophy) that produce
little revenue from industry (because it's not a saleable product) and give them to schools
of business or engineering. When people can't remember that the US Civil War comes before
the Second World War, this is what I think of (and yes, I've seen this chronology appear in
an essay). An Endowment grant is not a handout--it's a competition, and a fierce one at
that. I wonder what principles and concepts you're talking about up there?
The NEA is subject to the FOIA; the meetings of its congress are also public. In 1997, its
grant funds totalled $95 million; that's a drop in the bucket compared to the revenues of
over $3 billion generated in taxes by the economic activity surrounding it. Again, it's
not a direct correlation, so people assume it's money sent pouring down a black hole. If
the benefits aren't tangible ($$$) and direct, is something then not worth the support of
the nation?
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I don't think so. Anyway... (...) Who just happened to make IMO, the best country the world has ever seen, where people have unparalleled freedom, etc. This concept of how evil those dead white guys are always galls me. I heard countless (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
