Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:31:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1860 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is
> not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which
> it, having limited funds, must inevitably do).
>
> It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that his judgement is
> superior to that of the market...
I have to break in here--do you know who these "government drones" are?
Take a look at the message I wrote earlier about how the NEA/NEH
operate--I've done some more reading, and while an appointed congress makes
final decisions, the advisory boards (who do their work gratis, and who
*are* functioning artists/academics/etc) decide how pieces are weighted.
It's sheer hubris to think that a blind-watchmaker, invisible-hand "market"
is superior to trained and educated specialists. Money doesn't know art,
and many good artists would never see the light of day without the support
of public monies because they don't have the social and economic
"connections" the plutocrats do.
> If an artist cannot afford to finance his own work, and cannot find a
> patron willing to donate funds, perhaps that artist's work is not worthy
> of further consideration. The market's never wrong.
When the market itself defines what is right and wrong, of course it's never
wrong. However, when we look at something other than money as a determinant
of merit, that assertion falls flat--there's a second factor at work, one
that in the "ideal market" is automatic but in the real world is often at
odds with it.
> I would rather choose how to spend my buck fifty myself. That would be
> true even if it were .000230234 cents we were talking about. Funding art
> is WAY afield from the proper sphere of government (defense, internal
> and external, and administration of justice).
Thanks, Adam Smith. ;) Again, while the funding is governmental, the
expertise isn't. I know your stance very well and I'm not going to go
around in circles again over whether it's practical or utopian--something on
which we will differ until it's implemented or we kick the bucket--here. My
point is that the NEA is hardly the bumbling open wallet you're implying it
is. If it were, the academy would be clamoring for its destruction as
well--but in fact it's one of the few fora that approaches egalitarianism in
sponsorship.
best,
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which it, having limited funds, must inevitably do). It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that (...) (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
|
|
|
|
