Bush Makes Me Mad/National Endowment of the Arts - Page 3 - 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, 09:38 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:39 PM
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
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 09:44 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:39 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 10:40 PM   #33
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: 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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
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.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 06-24-2003, 11:14 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 04:39 PM

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
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 01:11 AM   #35
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:39 AM
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.
__________________
<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 06-25-2003, 02:44 AM   #36
Babyface
 
baener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13
Local Time: 02:39 AM
__________________
baener is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 05:43 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:39 PM
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 07:10 AM   #38
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:39 AM
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.
__________________
<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 06-25-2003, 10:29 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 05:39 PM
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".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 10:42 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

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.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 10:48 AM   #41
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,688
Local Time: 04:39 PM
Quote:
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-25-2003, 01:28 PM   #42
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 05:39 PM
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.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 04:39 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 05:39 PM
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 is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 04:42 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 05:39 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. 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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 06:29 PM   #45
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 05:39 PM
ack! double post. see below.
__________________

__________________
sharky 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 05:39 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