Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:19:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2068 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> "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 don't think so. Anyway...
>
> > 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")
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 people say,
oh well, they are dead now, they owned slaves, etc. Does that mean we
invalidate everything that they did? No. Just because they were
upper-class, does not make them bad. They had their faults, everyone
does, but I consider them to be some of the most unique and awe
inspiring people the world has produced.
> 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 vote every chance I get, and to contact my Representatives, etc.
>
> 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.
Funding the NEA is not a part of American culture. Most examples of our
culture, IMO, should not be there. Take all the examples, Urine in a
jar, the shower curtain and the Chocolate bar, etc. Would they have
survived in a free market? Would they have been created if the NEA was
there or not? I doubt it. I am not going to let the NEA define American
Culture. McDonalds, Star Wars, and Disney are part of the American
culture, even though people might dislike them.
> > 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).
Two different subjects. Our pitiful education system is the result of
the above quote, not funding the NEA. When our schools are more of a
leftist indoctrination center, filled with things like environmental
awareness, and self-esteem training, rather than the cores of values,
math, reading, history (Not P.C., BTW). Blame our other wonderful
creation, the NEA (National Educational Association), and the teachers
unions.
In terms of the cultural literacy programs, I have had enough of those
as well. I have taken all the required ones, and all they are is leftist
propaganda machines. I have never seen such a collection of Marxists,
Communists, Atheists, and Liberals in my life, spouting their views, and
using the classroom to do it. My favorite was Race and Ethnic relations,
good Lord, I spent $500.00 to hear that I was personally responsible for
every illness of minorities. Hogwash. These courses are designed with
nothing more in mind than to make me spend thousands of dollars to help
the school because I am required to take it. Not withstanding all the PC
classes as well, which was additional thousands of dollars. I wonder how
far a Womyn's Studies degree can go in the real world?
> 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?
I don't care how worthy it might be to you, I don't think the government
should be funding half the things it does. It is like the PBS spots, if
PBS doesn't do it, who will? Let's see, not the taxpayer? The NEA is a
small example of the huge amounts of money wasted on useless things. Our
government has shifted from what it was intended to do, into the current
beast of Washington, that just happens to spawn things like the NEA.
Everytime I see my sister, I see how the system does not work. Until I
see the evidence that our current government is doing good, I will fight
everything, from the NEA (Art) to public schools (NEA) to school choice.
The NEA is not in the scope of what I consider government should be
funding. Whenever I see NEA funding hideous things like that Madonna /
Dung / Female parts monstrosity in New York, I often think of the people
who defend it, and wonder how. It sickens me. We should cut off funding
for art, period. If they want to make it, fine. Let them work, like I
do, at two jobs, and let them use their own money to pay for it. This
goes for most government programs, that should not be there.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) God Bless America. Freedom to be shot, be badly educated, pollute, destroy and watch as much mind-rotting TV everyday to fill a life-time. Biggest and loudest doesn't equate to being best. IMO some of the best countries to live in are the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It's fairly clear-cut that it *is* their reason for being. You may argue about whether they fulfill that mandate, but their reason for being and the intellectual trajectory that generated them are right in line with the idea that intellectual (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) 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. (...) Trying to imagine how the (...) (24 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
