Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > Funding For The Arts
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 11:15 pm 
VC, I'm well aware of the information that is out there, but as an artist, I'm pretty workn out on the whole thing. I'm so discouraged that I'm not producing work right now, and I probably don't have the energy to overcome my frustration and talk about it right now.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 12:17 am 
Quote:
We have the distinction, I think, of being the only developed country in the world that lacks any sort of significant arts endowment.
A distinction we should strive to maintain. Having the state paying for art is like the govt sanctioning a religion. Things as arbitrary as what constitutes "art" should remain the in private sphere.
Quote:
Fact is, there are two things that mark history for a culture. One is politics and war, and the other is the art.
True enough. Doesn't mean we need to separate people from their hard earned money to pay for it with taxes, though. If they like it enough, they'll pay for it themselves. Personally, I don't want anyone using my hard work to pay for what they think is art, just like I don't want them using it for what they think is religion. The balance between being commercial enough to support yourself, and so far out nobody wants it, is a time honored artistic problem, from what I understand.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 12:32 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
Things as arbitrary as what constitutes "art" should remain the in private sphere.
Isn't the Smithsonian funded by the federal government? How does that fit in with your beliefs, or museums in general? They don't product art, but they sanction it by choosing what to display.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 12:59 am 
Quote:
Isn't the Smithsonian funded by the federal government? How does that fit in with your beliefs, or museums in general?
I don't know if it is or not. If so, I'd argue that it also should not be funded. Spending money on culture belongs to those who freely choose to support it with their own high minded principles and their own hard earned cash.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dante
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2815 | TRs | Pics
Dante
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 11:26 am 
How does Article I, Section 8 authorize Congress to spend federal funds on the arts? Has the court ever had to determine if Congress has this power? If so, how did they hold and why? The only Congressional Power I can see that might authorize arts spending is the power to "provide for...the general welfare." I'm comfortable with that when it comes to federal funding of public education, for example, but IMO arts should be funded voluntarily. Just my $0.02 clown.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Wolfgang
Guest




Wolfgang
Guest
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 11:55 am 
vistaclimber wrote:
What is declining is Fine Art, Live Theatre, Symphony and the like. Our money is going to Movie Theaters, DVD's, CD's etc.
This ain't anything new. Vaudeville died out when movies got popular in the 1920's. Movies took a big hit when television showed up. Network TV declined when cable came in. The postal service is suffering due to the internet. Railroads were hammered by the affordability of automobiles and big highways. Governments don't support the arts like the Medicis and prince-bishops of Germany. Popes don't spend tons on the arts and architecture any more -- money is spent on lawyers for bad priests. Live music has declined since recorded music. Radio has declined due to TV... yadda yadda yadda.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
treewalker
Member
Member


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 269 | TRs | Pics
Location: Atlanta
treewalker
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 12:30 pm 
marylou wrote:
VC, I'm well aware of the information that is out there, but as an artist, I'm pretty workn out on the whole thing. I'm so discouraged that I'm not producing work right now, and I probably don't have the energy to overcome my frustration and talk about it right now.
Marylou, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but as a fellow artist and since you have taken opportunities to criticize me in the past I have to say that this just sounds bogus to me. Attempting to blame the fact that you are creatively blocked on lack of NEA arts funding is REDICULOUS. Nothing is stopping you from creating art. In fact, art produced by under-funded "starving" artists is usually of way higher quality than that produced by cushy patron-funded fauntleroys in my opinion. Get your ass in gear and get to work creating art that expresses your frustration at our societies disrespect of fine arts. If you think it's important and have strong feelings about it then as an artist it is your civic duty to put that into aesthetic form, against all obstacles.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 4:31 pm 
It has nothing to do with whether or not I can get funding to make art. Right now the pervasive attitude is definitely anti-art, and I'm not inspired to paint, partially as a result of this. It's not a great moment in our development as a society. FWIW I don't get "blocked." That's for sissies. And FWIW I put together 1000-2000 words a month for the magazine pretty consistently, and I am working on a series of abstract photos. The serious stuff, is, though, for the time being, on the back burner.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dante
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2815 | TRs | Pics
Dante
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 4:48 pm 
HOUSE VOTES TO INCREASE NEA BUDGET BY $10 MILLION July 17, 2003 Washington, D.C.-The U.S. House of Representatives today passed an amendment granting the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) a $10 million budget increase. *** The U.S. Senate is expected to take up its version of the funding measure shortly. *** The bipartisan amendment provides an increase of $10 million for the Arts Endowment, in addition to President George W. Bush's FY 2004 budget request of $117.480 million. The agency's FY 2003 funding is $115.731 million.... If you keep supporting my kids, I'll keep supporting your artists...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 5:39 pm 
BIG GOVT. GEORGE! Sigh! This is NOT the guy I voted for. Another topic I guess. TB

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treewalker
Member
Member


Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 269 | TRs | Pics
Location: Atlanta
treewalker
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 6:47 pm 
marylou wrote:
Right now the pervasive attitude is definitely anti-art, and I'm not inspired to paint, partially as a result of this. It's not a great moment in our development as a society.
It's precisely those moments when society is most ripe for truly revolutionary art.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 8:00 pm 
Backpacker Joe wrote:
BIG GOVT. GEORGE! Sigh! This is NOT the guy I voted for.
Yeesh! Tom, you might just have to vote him out of office come '04. biggrin.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 8:05 pm 
IMHO government sponsored art is generaly bad art. In fact, however most of what NEA give money to is pretty moderate symphoneys, opera, theater, which is non controversial. I would rather have my $$ go there a thousant times more that killing Iraqis or whoever boy wonder decides is a sinner today.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 8:06 pm 
Backpacker Joe wrote:
BIG GOVT. GEORGE! This is NOT the guy I voted for.
He's not the guy I voted for either. biggrin.gif Seriously, though, there are a lot of conservatives that are really disappointed with Bush's performance as President so far. If you look at the things he said as a candidate and what he's done as president, it's almost a 100% reversal in some cases. The Daily Show did a great segment on that recently. September 11 can't account for all of it by any means. It seems once Bush let Chaney appoint his cabinet and get all his neocon friends in there, it wasn't really his Presidency any more.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostFri Aug 01, 2003 8:11 pm 
I've waffled on this topic many times in the past. I love art and consider myself an artist, but I've decided that the government is better off not sponsoring art, and art is better of not being sponsored by government. As long as there are artists and people who love art, I don't see the need for the government to be involved. I'd much rather the money given to the NEA was spent revamping the piss-poor education system in this country. An educated public would do a lot more in furthering art and art appreciation than direct contributions, IMO, and have all kinds of nifty side benefits as well. I think the state of our education system is much more reflective of the misplaced priorities of our society than its art funding. down.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > Funding For The Arts
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum