Bush Makes Me Mad/National Endowment of the Arts - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2003, 01:59 PM   #16
Refugee
 
U2Fan101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,196
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I'm not sure what this NEA is, but I get the gist. I think its very poor as well.
The National Endowment of the Arts was started by John F. Kennedy along with the National Endowment of the...Sciences? (Help me out people...I think that was the other program that was launched).

Because of the NEA, orchestras are able to get funding to help pay for salaries, newer buildings, commissions for new music, etc. It's not their main source of fuel, but it is a major chunk. The problem, I think though, lies a lot with Clinton. In the 8 years in office, he kept raising the funding to an unbelievable amount. By the time he left office it was up there in the top 10 of spending which was a first for the NEA. But then, Bush cut it lower than what it was when Kennedy started it. And now orchestra's are suffering. I think the saturation of the 90's really got Orchestra's and other arts to spend way too much, and then when the budget was cut drastically, as opposed to gradually, MANY orchestra's, ballet companies, museums, etc...suffered because of the sudden change.

Orchestra's, especially are a dying art. Classical music is sadly dying off. So the funding was extremely important to keep the music going in hopes of bringing it back. And it was working the last few years Clinton was in office. But with the drastic funding change, the american symphony orchestra's have suffered terribly, and interest has dropped again.
__________________

__________________
U2Fan101 is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 02:04 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 06:36 PM
80s, I suppose you would be qualified to make the decisions as to what art is offensive and what isn't? The difficulty in self-expression is that it is bound to be intrepreted and misinterpreted. And maybe that is the beauty of art, visual or otherwise.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 02:07 PM   #18
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:36 AM
80's I'm just curious, is it art in bad taste you are opposed to (understanably) or the arts in general? The way you use those examples doesn't seem to seperate them much.

Thanks btw U2Fan101


__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 02:37 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
80s, I suppose you would be qualified to make the decisions as to what art is offensive and what isn't? The difficulty in self-expression is that it is bound to be intrepreted and misinterpreted. And maybe that is the beauty of art, visual or otherwise.
Heck yes, I am qualified to make the decision as to what art is offensive to me. And that is my point. I should not be forced to pay for any art that I find offensive. If you will read my posts, you will see that I am against funding art anyone makes.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 02:39 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
80's I'm just curious, is it art in bad taste you are opposed to (understanably) or the arts in general? The way you use those examples doesn't seem to seperate them much.

I'm getting a little frustrated here. How many times do I have the say that I am not opposed to the arts? I am opposed to the government making people pay for the arts.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 02:43 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:36 PM
I won't argue that some "arts" funding is screwy. If someone drew a picture of someone in my family in an offensive manner, and I'd object if it were covered with dung or whatever, I'd be upset. My point is not all arts funding is screwy. Our Shakespeare festival is not. It's partially NEA funded. One of the worst experiences of my life, period, was when some idiots burned up $250,000 worth of the Shakespeare theatre costumes about twenty years ago. At the time I thought I wanted to be a theatrical costume maker. I eventually decided I didn't want to do this. It was a fd up day the day those fools got in there with cigarette lighters. This stuff is expensive. Idiots.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 02:45 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:36 PM
But don't you see that you saying you shouldn't have to pay for a government programme with which you disagree opens up a whole discussion on whether people should have to pay for anything they object to?

I objected to my government spending money I paid in taxation on bombing innocent Iraqi citizens (please let's not turn this into a debate on the war thread - I opposed it, lots of you supported it, we're never going to agree so let's leave well alone. Please?). I object even more to paying Tony Blair's wages. However, I don't get to decide what the government spend money raised through taxation on. I pay my taxes as required and my way of having an influence on how that money is spent is to vote at the next election.

80s - there won't always be wealthy philanthropists willing to fund art. How would, for example, an author struggling to finish their first novel gain funding from a random philanthropist. While it might be conceivable that such a person would donate in order to enable a museum to purchase an expensive work of art, it's hardly likely that they would choose to help talented artists who are struggling to pay the bills whilst creating art and receiving no pay for doing so.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 03:05 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:36 PM
I never said we shouldn't have to pay for things we don't want to. I don't want to pay taxes at all, quite frankly. But some taxes are necessary, such as welfare for people who can't work, education (but that should be on the local level), and the military (whether you agree with the war on Iraq, surely you agree we must have a military).

Paying for someone's art is not a necessity.

Also, I did write a novel, and 3 musicals. Why should you be forced to pay me to write those?

And just because that's what he makes his living at doesn't mean the government should help pay for it. I do web design for a living. Should you have to help me pay for Adobe GoLive? Why is my web design career any less important than someone who paints for a living?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 03:23 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
There's a lot of things being bought with my tax dollars that I don't agree on...but I agree with you 80's, I don't want my tax dollars being spent on one man's art. But I do believe in spending my tax dollars on art education.


This is a great idea. Art was part of my 2nd grade son's curriculum this year. I was amazed at some of the stuff he brought home. It should remain a part of elementary education.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 03:55 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:36 PM
I resent my tax dollars being spent on the arts. I would venture that a case could somehow be made that it is not Constitutional to take my money to use it to pay for art.

This does not make me opposed to the arts. I pay money to be a mamber at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. I Pay money to be a member of the Philharmonic Orchestra locally. I am contributing. It is contributions that I made by CHOICE.

As to Fizzings comments about funding a military....that is CONSTITUTIONAL and my tax dollars should be spent in defense of the country because 'a well regulated militia" is part of our constitution.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 06:13 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:36 PM
80s -- how are you going to get the talent to have your musicals performed? If there's no NEA, you will only get the people who could AFFORD to take singing lessons. Your work would be a waste. No one would know how to play the music or sing the songs or build the sets. Sorry, but intercity schools do not have philanthropists fixing school instruments or paying the salary of a chorus teacher. And who is going to read your novel if kids don't learn about literature? Are you saying that literature is different than music? Because I view both of them as art.

Hey, I live in Brooklyn. My tax dollars PAID for that museum and the dung Mary picture. Do I agree with it? No. But that doesn't mean we should cut funding to thousands of painters, musicians and other artists because of one painting. Don't look at that painting. Look at something else.

Would I be offended if someone made a picture of a family member with dung on it? Hmm...I don't know if I would necessarily be mad as much as wonder what the hell the person was thinking. But what is different between wondering what an artist did when they made a dung Mary and what van Gogh was thinking when he painted Starry Night?
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 07:13 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Art, music, literature are important. They can change lives, save lives, enhance lives. Art has been an indellible component of human history, culture and evolution, and we are all that much richer for it.

I have lived off the North American continent for about a decade or so, and I have found people overseas more open to the pursuit of art and public funding of art. I've also found their countries, architecture, people to be all the better for it.

I just graduated University, going back to school in the fall, I work, don't make much money, pay taxes which get returned to me on account of low income. But even if they didn't, I would not hesitate for a portion being allocated to the arts. Life can be black and white and art is all the colours of the spectrum in between.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-24-2003, 07:16 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I think the government has better things to spend our money on than to pay for someone to paint a picture or take a photo or write a song, whatever.
Allow me to inform you that all surviving arts programs internationally are government supported. A nation that does not have an active arts program will be destined to be forgotten. That was the fate of the Assyrians (conquered by the Babylonians in the Bible), who were so obsessed with war that little is known about them today.

The amount of government money spent on arts is miniscule compared to pork projects, corporate welfare, and our war chest.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 09:20 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I never said we shouldn't have to pay for things we don't want to. I don't want to pay taxes at all, quite frankly. But some taxes are necessary, such as welfare for people who can't work, education (but that should be on the local level), and the military (whether you agree with the war on Iraq, surely you agree we must have a military).

Paying for someone's art is not a necessity.

Also, I did write a novel, and 3 musicals. Why should you be forced to pay me to write those?

And just because that's what he makes his living at doesn't mean the government should help pay for it. I do web design for a living. Should you have to help me pay for Adobe GoLive? Why is my web design career any less important than someone who paints for a living?

It isn't ! Have you tried to get any funding through sources like, The NEA or Adobe who probably has programs funded through the NEA or other philanthrophic sources. It's there for you too.
I mean if you are really serious, then your should go for it. You tax dollars paid for it afte all.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 09:30 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
80s -- how are you going to get the talent to have your musicals performed? If there's no NEA, you will only get the people who could AFFORD to take singing lessons.
The NEA does this? I wonder where they were when I was being trained as a classical clarinetist. I have NO recollection of the NEA having anything do do with anything I was involved in. I am not saying they do not help. I am however saying that from the time I was eight years old until I was 19 years old, I do not ONCE recall the NEA being involved in anything. That goes from my lessons, to the weekly trips into the New England COnservatory, to the music festivals......

I am sure they had something to do with the Restoration of Symphony Hall and Jordan Hall in Boston. Jordan Hall, by the way, is the better of the two if you are looking to hear a performance.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com