Bush Makes Me Mad/National Endowment of the Arts

[melon]

The NEA is an "invisible" organization, essentially. There are a lot of things the NEA contributes to that you really wouldn't know about.

I know that, logically, it would be expected for art to pay for itself. However, "art" isn't about being profitable. I know that's difficult for some people to hear, but, if you want to talk about a "trickle-down" effect, that "artsy shit" often influences directors and other artists to make something more mainstream.

It would be a big mistake for the NEA to cease to exist. American art would turn into shambles.

Melon

 

[verte76]

The NEA is indeed an "invisible" organization. We can't see it or hear it. It's not something like the NIH (National Institute of Health). When I think about ways I want the government to spend the taxpayers money naturally I think of the NIH and autism research since I'm an autistic and I want my cure next week. But I hate to think about life without the NEA and all the things I can get from it in spite of being a lousy library clerk.

 

[sue4u2]

The NEA is an "invisible" organization, essentially. There are a lot of things the NEA contributes to that you really wouldn't know about.

I know that, logically, it would be expected for art to pay for itself. However, "art" isn't about being profitable. I know that's difficult for some people to hear, but, if you want to talk about a "trickle-down" effect, that "artsy shit" often influences directors and other artists to make something more mainstream.

It would be a big mistake for the NEA to cease to exist. American art would turn into shambles.

Melon

Good point Melon.
One could always go to one of the various mainstream "reality tv" program's to get their funding or if they just want to see art & entertainment.

And Verte76 -Like you say it's not completely known where the funding goes but there are studies and documentation of the positive effects of music, specifically classical music and it's effects on the brain of autistic childern and adults. It's excellent reasearch. However, I do not know if the NEA has any hand in this. I just can't help but think what would be next if the Art's are eliminated from any funding. Some other forms of education won't be far behind, like libraries. Please, you are not a lousy librarian clerk. You are vital to all that is important. I read alot of your post on interference and I truly respect what you have to say.

 

[U2Bama]

I ask both sides:

Is there ANY room for compromise? All sides act as if there is no room whatsoever.

Would it be possible to not fund the "Piss Christ" and "dung Mary" type of projects that artists such as Serrano and Maplethorpe have given us, but still retain general funding for art education and museums and such?

I am trying my damnedest to be reasonable in this debate because I truly appreciate everything that the Blount family of Alabama (whom verte76 referenced) have done to make the NEA a GOOD thing, but also think it would be best if tax money were not diverted toward offensive and/or obscene art. I know that some of you will flame me for not going along the interference-party line; well, flame away!

~U2Alabama

 

[Angela Harlem]

I have room for compromise defaintely 80's. Apologies for how it may seem anyone is attacking you personally for your views.
I've got a huge gripe in general with certain types of 'art' that I dont see how it is considered 'art'. Some dirty hippy psuedo in pinstriped suit pants and a pajama top puts together a collection of what we would generally call rubbish and because they have tacked on themselves the label of 'Artist' it is welcomed as being innovative and deeply self expressional. Wel all that my arse as far as I'm concerned. I dont view it as art, and I dont have to. Its not my idea of quality and shows little talent. It annoys me more as when artists like this take away from someone else who may have more ability in my definition of true art. Art loosely comes down to taste I think, and therefore in this context I can definately agree with you wholeheartedly.
Problem is though, not everyone views art the same way, and there are always going to be people who welcome such crap. I view sport as pretty much the same. Overall unecessary and a waste of my tax dollars. While I have my views though, someone out there is of the belief that it has its place.
Who's right? I think I am, only because I base it on my personal opinion. But I have little else to base it on. I know what I like but grudgingly admit that my taste and preference is not for everyone.
Cant really win I guess.

 

[baener]

 

[melon]

You know what? "Piss Christ" and "Dung Mary" cost absolutely little to nothing. They are a miniscule percentage of the NEA budget. This is mostly media hysteria, with the media loving making people mad over nothing. After all, how much does it cost to put a cross in a urine jar? Nothing!

I support your right to find this stuff offensive (I think it is utterly useless myself), but to base this over your lack of support for the NEA...well, it's just plain melodramatic.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

I'd hazard a guess that it is the principle of the whole thing melon. You dont even need a good grasp of religion to see that.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You're right, Angela. It is indeed the prinicipal of the thing. However, I would like to point out that artists don't just receive the money to make the art; they also get grants to open up galleries and keep them running. That's hardly "nothing".

 

[kobayashi]

Would it be possible to not fund the "Piss Christ" and "dung Mary" type of projects that artists such as Serrano and Maplethorpe have given us, but still retain general funding for art education and museums and such?

~U2Alabama

this is dependant on how they determine funding. whoever 'approved' whatever amount of funding 'piss christ' recieved did so likely relative to set of qualifications. what you are suggesting could be seen as a slippery slope toward censorship and thus a political move. in that sense, maybe outright withdrawl of funding was the superior option.

 

[BVS]

I am trying my damnedest to be reasonable in this debate because I truly appreciate everything that the Blount family of Alabama (whom verte76 referenced) have done to make the NEA a GOOD thing, but also think it would be best if tax money were not diverted toward offensive and/or obscene art. I know that some of you will flame me for not going along the interference-party line; well, flame away!

Who would be the judge? Now we're talking censorship.

My thing is that I would love to see this funding go to art education, museums, etc. Keep it an umbrella type of funding rather than fund an individual's work. Art is very subjective. What one person see's as crap another see's as life-altering. But someone is making the decisions as to who is worthy and who is not. The way it's set up now, there's so many artist, truly talented artist, that will never get a chance.

 

[sharky]

exactly. art is subjective and you can't just choose here and there when you are funding. Have you seen Maplethorpe's work for example? Yeah, some is a little out there but he did some beautiful black and white floral photographs as well.

This reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when they put a pair of jeans on Michaelangelo's David. If Michaelangelo was alive today, would you support his sculptures? or his paintings of biblical nudes on the ceiling of a chapel? probably not, but that doesn't make it art.

 

[80sU2isBest]

angela, the last half of my last post to you (the one where I started with "you're right Angela") was actually to melon, not to you. Sorry.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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?

I casted one of my musicals, and to my knowledge, none of them had any help from the NEA. Also, like Dreadsox, I've never heard of the NEA helping poor people afford lessons.

Also, you didn't really answer my question to you. I didn't ask if you'd be offended just at the fact that someone painted an offensive picture of a loved one, but that you were forced to help pay for it with your tax dollars.

That is the issue, after all.

 

[sharky]

ack! double post. see below.

 

[sharky]

If funding for the NEA goes to an offensive picture of a loved one so be it. It will be the price I pay and instead of going to see the picture, I'll go the opera and the symphony and a gallery in SoHo that is showing something I like.

The NEA budget is a small part of your tax dollars. I was pissed off that they spent $24 million to investigate a blow job. I want more of my tax dollars to go to the Sept. 11 investigation. I didn't want my tax dollars spent on the war but they were. Pick something your tax dollars are going to that you like if you are that upset about the NEA.

As for funding, are you telling me that no one in your musical worked at a community theater? That no musician played in a local symphony or children's choir? That no artist gets their start at a community-run art program? NEA gives money to college music program, local community groups, etc. etc. etc. I would bet you that at least someone in your musical has benefited from the NEA. The NEA isn't a hand out to starving artists. Its to programs that advance art. How are you funding that musical? Why not ask the NEA for money for funding and take it away from the dung Mary artists if you're that upset about it? You could do that if you want.

 

[80sU2isBest]

How are you funding that musical? Why not ask the NEA for money for funding and take it away from the dung Mary artists if you're that upset about it? You could do that if you want.

Because I don't want you to be forced to pay for my musical. That is the whole point.

 

[nbcrusader]

With all the talk about where we want "our money" to go, I wonder if this is actually backed up by personal charitable donations?

 

[verte76]

With all the talk about where we want "our money" to go, I wonder if this is actually backed up by personal charitable donations?

Yes. Just about all NEA grants are matched with private funds. That's one point the Blount family makes when they are asked about their support of the NEA.

 

[kobayashi]

i have been trying to remember this chapter since i read this thread.

a very good socio-economic evaluation of arts funding comes by way of ronald dworkin in a matter of principle and more specifically, chapter 11 titled can a liberal state support art.

i have the book in front of me but dont see it online anywhere.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

I am a Canadian arts fundraiser. I cannot speak to the NEA specifically, because I don't know enough about what and how they fund things. Obviously though, the idea of arts funding is pretty close to my heart and I am a strong believer in government support of the arts.

The fact is, whether you are in Canada or the US, there simply is not ENOUGH private sector money to support everything. I believe it should be a partnership betw. the Gov't and the Private Sector.

I too, refuse to donate to health or education because EVERYONE does. With the exception of the WWF, Amnesty and the Humane Society, I give exclusively to arts. However, people like me and U2fan101 are few and far between.

Governments should support what is best for the population at large. Arts make life worth living. What is the point of having education and health if there is no quality of life? If you go day by day through life getting up, going to work and going to bed again??? Art is in our very souls. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because you find one or two artworks offensive!

80s, if I were an American tax payer, I would have NO PROBLEM being "forced" to pay for your play. I think paying for art is money much better spent than half the other crap our tax dollars are wasted on. Plus, if you find one or two things offensive, just think that your money went to pay for the arts that you DO enjoy.

Then we go to the economic argument. By funding arts organizations, there is a HUGE ecomomic impact to the rest of the community. Ballet company A gets government money and stays afloat. Private donations enable them to have reasonably affordable ticket prices. The tourists (and locals) attend the theatre. They go to a restaurant for dinner. Pay for parking. Buy something at the shop. Buy the video and the CD. Pay the taxi or public transit. All of these other industries pay taxes and so on and so on. Arts generate BILLIONS of dollars that go back into the economy...far more than are taken out to fund them in the first place. It is a HUUUUUGE return on investment.

Even if you have a piece of art in a museum that you think is crappy, if it's controversial, no doubt ppl will come to your town from far and wide to see it. If YOU think it's offensive, don't GO!

Arts are JUST as important as everything else. They are NOT a frill, they are what life is all about.

I will close with one final example. In Toronto we have a company called Opera Atelier. It is a tiny opera company that does purely Baroque operas. It was founded by this pair of dancers with no money. They got funding from all levels of Gov't. Through the quality of their work and their passion for what they do, they have gone on to travel internationally and build up a stellar reputation. They have also had a school in inner city Toronto with many students who attend for free.

Many of these students, who otherwise would NEVER have had an opportunity to get involved with arts are now in University studying music, performing with companies or....actually arts lovers who have richer lives because of having the OPPORTUNITY to experience it. Opportunity that I GUARANTEE you would not be there without Gov't funding.

Philanthropists don't just materialize out of nowhere, and believe me, I know wherof I speak. Philanthropists first of all have to know you exist, and then they have to be cultivated for YEARS AND YEARS. They don't just say "oh! Here's a cheque to cover your annual operations forever. bye now!". It's grants from Government that get companies like Opera Atelier and individuals the chance they need to be exposed to philanthropists (of which there really aren't that many in the arts world...certainly not enough to go around) and then MAYBE if you're lucky, you will have a philanthropist who will provide you with money to buy a building, or create a work. You still need to keep afloat while all that is going on. You have to pay the rent on your studio...keep the lights on so to speak.

I think it's time tax money went to build things that last a lifetime. Things that will inspire future generations. Arts inspire not just artists, but scientists and regular people too. The correlation between arts and achievement in education is known by everyone. Why this year, the National Ballet School Graduating class got honours (over 80% in at least 6 subjects) this year. This was achieved on top of hours of dance classes. The ENTIRE class got honours. This is because they have the discipline and have reaped the benefits of arts exposure. In fact, recent grads of the School who could no longer dance, got accepted into med school and law school solely on the basis that they are NBS grads.

Oh, and yeah...NBS has government funding. We could not exist without it.

Melon is so right. Just for one tiny example, why do you remember Louis XIV? Because he was the Sun King....founder of ballet in fact. Versailles! You remember countries for their arts and literature....at the very least you admire them for that. No one admires Atilla the Hun.

OK, enough rambling from me. This topic gets me very exercised.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

preach it sister!

 

[80sU2isBest]

80s, if I were an American tax payer, I would have NO PROBLEM being "forced" to pay for your play. .

You say that. And I really think you believe you'd have no problem being forced to pay for my play.

But what if my play glorified a person who beat up homosexuals, called minority characters every racial slur you can think of, set his dog on fire and murdered his wife after cheating on her? Are you going to sit there and tell me you would have no problem with your money going toward production of that play? Come on now, that would be an absolutely repulsive and satanic play, and it is extremely hard for me to believe you'd have no problem helping to fund it.

 

[anitram]

80s, why are you only fixating on these extreme cases which probably make up such an insignificant portion of overall art that they really don't deserve the undue attention they've gotten?

Surely for every "satanic" painting, there are 50 mediocre ones and a "Starry Night." Yet all you seem to talk about are these offensive pieces that constitute an unnoticable minority.

Lots of people write Harlequin Romances which I happen to find idiotic, but I don't think we should cut High School English because a few will produce offensive works, while we may also end up with a Samuel Beckett or two.

Over human history, art has done a lot more to enrich our lives, architecture has made its mark on the loveliest cities in the world, music has moved us to post on this board. Surely those things are more important than a handful of plays which you (and not everybody) happens to deem offensive?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Unnoticeable minority? Is that why the crucifix painting gathered so much attention, because it was unnoticeable? That's funny.

Look, if you have no problem paying for things which offend the crap outta you, that's okay with me. Send your money wherever you want it to.

But you know what? I'm a web consultant and money is a little bit tight for me right now. I should not be forced to pay someone to take the symbol of my faith and stick it in a glass of urine.

 

[anitram]

It got so much attention because the media knew it had a story on their hands. They took one useless piece of art then extrapolated to make it seem that this is a common occurrence. It is not.

Surely you find religious art which inspires you? Have you seen the Sistine Chapel? I'd recommend it. The Vatican also has some astounding pieces, and Rome itself is great. The amphitheatre is nice, but the one in Pula is almost as impressive.

Personally I don't think our presidents and prime ministers need to be eating with real silverware. Stick them with stainless steel like the rest of us. I don't think their ass has to ride in a car equipped with leather either, but there you have it. Plenty of our money is spent on utter nonsense, and nobody even blinks an eye. How much money was spent trailing a cigar up Monica Lewinsky's you know what?

 

[80sU2isBest]

The Clinton appeachment is a different subject altogether. But if you don't think a president should be held accountable for perjuring himself to a federal grand jury, you are free to hold thatr opinion.

And you know what? It's not really completelty about the offensive art. I am about to reiterate a point I have made over and over again. I don't think it's right to force people to pay other people to make art or music or films, period.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Unnoticeable minority? Is that why the crucifix painting gathered so much attention, because it was unnoticeable? That's funny.

Look, if you have no problem paying for things which offend the crap outta you, that's okay with me. Send your money wherever you want it to.

But you know what? I'm a web consultant and money is a little bit tight for me right now. I should not be forced to pay someone to take the symbol of my faith and stick it in a glass of urine.

It gained attention because the media fixated on it. Trust the media to spot an inflammatory story at ten paces.

And you know what? I'm a student and right now I can hardly pay my rent. That doesn't mean I don't have to pay taxes. I object to my taxes having been used to bomb innocent people in Iraq. I shouldn't be forced to pay for the murder of innocent people. Why is this argument any different to your argument? Everyone pays taxes: sometimes they're spent on things we don't like, but that's just the way it goes. Besides, the NEA probably costs you less than $1 a year, so I hardly think it's worth making a huge issue of.

 

[melon]

Unnoticeable minority? Is that why the crucifix painting gathered so much attention, because it was unnoticeable? That's funny.

Look, if you have no problem paying for things which offend the crap outta you, that's okay with me. Send your money wherever you want it to.

But you know what? I'm a web consultant and money is a little bit tight for me right now. I should not be forced to pay someone to take the symbol of my faith and stick it in a glass of urine.

It cost you, personally, a whole one penny. No, not even that. A fraction of one cent. If you want to give me your address, I'll mail you that one penny, to cover your cost, plus interest. Make that two. Can't forget both the urine and the shit!

Do you want to know what utterly faulty logic this is? The war in Iraq successfully offended a lot of people. Should they now have stopped paying taxes? And I won't get you started on faith-based initiatives, with my tax money going to organizations that I consider to be highly bigoted. If all you have to worry about is the NEA, consider yourself lucky compared to the rest of us.

You are currently a victim of media hype.

Melon

 

[Mrs. Edge]

But what if my play glorified a person who beat up homosexuals, called minority characters every racial slur you can think of, set his dog on fire and murdered his wife after cheating on her? Are you going to sit there and tell me you would have no problem with your money going toward production of that play? Come on now, that would be an absolutely repulsive and satanic play, and it is extremely hard for me to believe you'd have no problem helping to fund it.

1) If your play was about all that, either you would be arrested for hate crime, or it would show people what an absolute ass this character in the play is, and might teach them a lesson or two.

2) Yes, although I wouldn't want to actually see it, yes I would still want it funded because of the principle. I wouldn't want to see genuine talent lose out on funding because of a handful of offensive pieces.


3) Are you opposed to freedom of speech? Because afterall, freedom of speech means you have people who say all kinds of racist and homophobic things....does that mean you will cancel freedom of speech because a few wackos steal the spotlight? It's EXACTLY the same concept.

4) The great thing about actually paying for something, is that you then have the right to complain about it. Because you are a tax payer, if you find a certain work offensive, write to the artist! Write to the funder of the artist! Kick up a stink! That is your right. It doesn't mean you remove the infrastructure that all artists need. that's also like saying, this guy has a small business that makes among other things, rude religious pictures. He got a small business loan. Therefore the government should no longer give anyone a small business loan. It's just too extreme and too draconian.

5) With all the other crap you have to pay for with your taxes, I can't believe you are making such a huge issue of this.