Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:28:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2203 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
> >
> > "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> >
> > > 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...
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 enrichment is the path to social
improvement. It's a straight line from the 18th century to here (albeit not necessarily one with
a positive slope).
> > 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.
I'm not arguing that those individual people were somehow "evil"--although they represented a
confluence of interests that ranged from the truly altruistic to the absolutely mercenary. Read
what I wrote again; I'm referring to the shorthand buried within the use of that term. People
who condemn DWEMs (Dead White European Males, a useful acronym for anti-postmodernists) in a
knee-jerk or blanket manner--like your Race and Ethnic Relations person--aren't going to get very
far. The historical truth is much more complex.
But in any case, the term *is* coded that way--African Americans, Native Americans, and
Hispanics, for example, almost never invoke the Founding Fathers unless they're talking to white
or "European" America. It points to a problem where European America feels that its position of
power in 1800 means that it should define the culture of 2000, and only include those elements
"approved" by this group as "American". At the heart of that issue is the idea of what the
United States is, what it should become, and whether or not we're true to a vision set up
two-plus centuries ago when we're in an age with countless complicating factors that nobody
predicted. The testament to the intellectual greatness you're talking about above is that the
Constitution has survived, and that it has remained a progressive, classical-liberal (which is
now called "conservative", go figure) document.
Do I agree that this is the best country in the world? I agree that it has the potential to be.
In some ways it is, in other ways it *can* be but for our own silliness. The system has enough
nebulosity to include everyone, but the arguments occur over who must adapt to whom, and that's
where organs like the NEH and NEA found their mission statements.
> 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.
Read the pasage again. "How many people are like you or I..." I'm not disputing that you're
active (and I'm also not sure you're implying that I am disputing it, but just in case...). I'm
talking about the Average American.
> 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.
Again, is American Culture only those things you find unobjectionable? There are still Parisians
who find the Eiffel Tower hideous (they wanted to tear it down in '06)--yet it is an indelible
symbol of French Culture--granted, they argue endlessly over what is French and what isn't, but
everyone seems to agree that the tower is.
It's impossible to argue counterfactuals, like the existence of the Damon Wayans-esque urine in a
jar without the NEA. I think they would have existed--they just wouldn't have had that
audience. (And yes, I agree, it's tasteless.) I'm not sure, however, that I would consider the
jazz festivals sponsored by the NEA to be wastes of money, nor would I consider their sponsorship
of some foreign shows that already have worldwide exposure to be ill-advised. The urine-in-a-jar
isn't the cookie-cutter NEA project, even though its opponents like to pretend that it is.
> > > 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.
I disagree. They're directly related. (And I don't think that the above quote caused our lousy
education system--I'd like to dream of one day having that much effect on humanity, albeit for
good and not for bad. ;) ) The arts and the humanities share the same purview of cultural
literacy and breadth of knowledge--the origin of both as disciplines are intertwined, and they
still share a lot of qualities. There's been an effort to "scientify" some of the humanities to
get them away from the arts, but in the end they're still in the same basic category.
> 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.
Well, I'm happy that at least you include history in the general category of the "core." But you
say "not P.C."--which, again, is shorthand for a whole constellation of positions and
viewpoints. Nobody ever says "I'm Politically Correct"--they only use the term in the negative,
when they're being provincial or defending an equally biased position to the ultra-revisionist
Martin Bernals of the world (read _Black Athena_ to see what he advocates re: "Greece stole all
of its innovations and philosophies from Africa"; it's possibly the worst piece of political
Afrocentric trash I've ever read). The positions that people identify as the "PC" are usually
the noisy fringe; the bulk of my colleagues and I chart a course that steers well away from those
rocks. But at the same time, pointing to them as emblematic of the entire academy is also a
problem that constantly threatens to undo the *real* progress that's being made in social and
cultural history.
> 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.
That's a mighty powerful statement. Was this Ohio State?
You're also choosing to apply "Cultural Literacy" to those bizarre general-studies "sensitivity"
programs that I also can't quite grok. I include in "Cultural Literacy" such traditional
subjects as Shakespeare, Comparative Religion, Expository Writing, and so forth. The position of
the "Western Canon" is a perpetual source of debate in all Universities, from the
ultra-right-wing and Ivy-League (Hah-vahd) to the ultra-liberal and quasi-public (most of U-M's
LS&A departments).
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Marxist, a Communist, an atheist, or
a Liberal (whatever you mean by those). The important thing is to make sure your students know
your viewpoint and understand that it may very well be skewed. What's interesting to me is that
some of my fellow academics embrace cultural studies for their introduction of "balance" and
knowledge into a previously very narrow curriculum, but then don't bother to realise that they
also have positionality.
Here's an example (it's an anecdote, actually): I'm teaching a 300-level course called
"Imperialism" this summer. A tenured faculty member is also teaching this course over the
summer. However, he's a dedicated Marxist, and I'm not; his approach is predicated on the
connection between global capitalism and exploitation. Mine is more concerned with cultural
exchange and imperialism as a relationship between people, however fair or unfair. He's
unwilling to dissect his positionality as a Marxist before the students, while I am willing to
talk about where I come from on the issues and how that colours my perceptions. From previous
experience, I'll be better received and have better classroom discussions, even though I'm
relatively liberal and completely Unitarian.
I can see where these extreme people you mention are coming from, even if I don't agree. What I
find objectionable is that they pound it in as inviolable authority--everyone learns much more
when it's opened for reasoned and spirited debate.
> 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?
Did someone come and point at you, saying "you personally are responsible?" There is something
to the idea of responsibility--the concept of majority privilege as reinforcing an unequal
system--but if the message is that you are responsible for the initial injustices of the world,
that's just wrong. The only thing we're responsible for is changing the system that already
exists for the better.
In the "real world" (whatever that means), Women's Studies does rather well. Most of my friends
who have such degrees went on to become health professionals, advertising and marketing people,
and lawyers who specialise in women's issues. Granted, two of those require further training,
but the degree is what got them there.
> 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?
For PBS? The taxpayers do fund it, but not solely through taxes. I don't know about you, but
without Sesame Street, my childhood would have been much poorer.
> 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.
How so? Apologies if you've brought it up somewhere else and I missed it.
> 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 National Education Association is *not* a government agency. I think it's too unionish for
its own good, but it's not a part of this "bloated government" everyone rails against.
> 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.
Again, the grass always looks greener--but I wonder what the world would look like without
student loans (a much greater expenditure than the NEA, for example), or educational grants, or
Affirmative Action. You seem to think it would be a better place, and I would agree, were those
things not needed. No thanks, I'm not in any hurry to rush headlong into a new hereditary
plutocracy.
It's also interesting that people think that NEA grants go to help people "make" the art. That's
not generally true. It helps the publicization of art, brings shows to locations that might not
have been profitable, brings shows here from abroad, funds programs designed to improve art
appreciation (this all includes music, btw!), and the like. More often than not the "art"
already exists.
I'll see if I can find anyone on campus who's been on an NEA advisory board--they can tell me
what the applications are like, and what the money actually does.
best,
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Lindsay, I seem to be repeating myself. But anyway... (...) cal truth is much more complex. Hmm.. Well, from the people I have heard talk about this, they are high up, this is another debate I don't want to get into anymore.... (...) en we're in an (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
