Bush Makes Me Mad/National Endowment of the Arts

[U2Fan101]

ARRRRGH! At this moment, I REALLY REALLY dispise Bush. In fact I did when he was elected. I voted for Gore on the sole reason he would raise the funding for the National Endowment of the Arts. Bush BLATANTLY said he would cut the funding. HE ALL BUT GOT RID OF IT!

Now these past few years orchestras have been folding, declaring bankruptcy, cutting back on salaries. Some have been asked if Sept. 11th has anything to do with it. And they shake their heads and ALL say "Nope....Lack of funding from the National Endowment of the Arts."

WHAT THE HECK!? Bush...you're killing a wonderful art, you eeeeee-diot! (Thank you Ren and Stimpy).

*phew* Ok...I feel better now that I ranted like that.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I guess I'm an eeeeee-diot, also. You should consider yourself lucky I'm not the pres. I would have totally got rid of funding for the NEA. In fact, that would have been the first thing to go.

 

[ouizy]

why is that?

although I think I have heard stories of that money going to the most ridiculous uses...

 

[verte76]

Just about everything the NEA funds is matched with funds from private sources. Hell, some people who supported Bush in the election are major supporters of the NEA in this neck of the woods. This includes the benefactor of the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. I wonder what they're thinking now.

 

[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. If someone is sick enough to immerse a cross in glass of urine and then take a photo, that's his freedom. But it offends the crap out of me, and I shouldn't be forced to pay even 1/100,000,000th of a cent on it. It's the principle of the thing. And I know what some of ya'll are thinking, so I'll go ahead and answer those questions right away:

1)No, it wouldn't make any difference if the person were paiting something I liked, like a reverent painting of Jesus. If he wants to paint and get a gallery started for it, excellent! But no one should eb forced to pay for his gallery. Maybe I would pay if he asked for donations, but no oen should be forced to pay for other people's art.

2)No, I don't agree with everything Bush has done.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

It's unfortunate the so many people have such a low view of the arts. In my opinion, they are quite a necessary part of having a good society and I'm more than happy to have some of my taxes going to support them.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You're assuming every talented artist has the means to create art without any kind of financial support.

And this idea that money raised through taxation shouldn't be spent on things which offend the tax payer is impossible. Many taxpayers don't like war and yet it doesn't prevent the federal government spending billions bombing Iraq.

 

[sharky]

Not everyone appreciates head start meal programs at school. Not everyone appreciates spending money on war. Not everyone agrees with spending money on art.

The fact of the matter is that for one thing that may offend you, there are SOOOO many things that you or anyone else would never get exposure to if it wasn't for the NEA. Opera, symphonies, Monet, Shakespeare. And up here in NYC, many of our art museums are not free. Without the NEA, you are further restricting the people who are able to view art. So you don't like it. So what? Some 10-year-old kid living in the projects may go to museum, be inspired by what is on the wall and actually DO something with his life. If he wants to be a poor starving but none the less ARTIST then he should have access to that.

On a side note, who do you think paid for the band that Larry Mullen Jr. marched in as a kid. Wanna make a bet it was subsidised by the government? and look where we are now.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I agree 100% with both sula and sharky.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[U2Fan101]

I appreciate the 'nenagetive' responses for the NEA if you will.
There is a saying that goes "if you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. And if you are smart, surround yourself with people who disagree with you."

I have always been for the people deciding where their taxes go. Frankly, I think, in my opinion, if the people decided where their taxes went to, our economy would be pretty darn good. How can 100 senators, and numerous state representatives and a president know what is good for the people? I think it's wrong they decide where the tax money goes. If you are going to tax us, fine, then let every single person decide where their money is spent. It's not the governments money to decide where it goes. We earned it. You're forcing us to spend 20 percent on taxes? Let us decide where it goes then.

One person may chose, Military, Health, Education and other genres. Myself would chose the NEA, Education and Health. Why not the military? They'll get their funding. Millions of people support the military. So I'll take my money and give it to something that WON'T get support, like the NEA.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It's unfortunate the so many people have such a low view of the arts. In my opinion, they are quite a necessary part of having a good society and I'm more than happy to have some of my taxes going to support them.

And that's your freedom to pay for their support.

But I shouldn't have to.

And it's pretty insulting that you think I have a low appreciation for the arts just because I don't want to foot the bill for others. In fact, I am a songwriter, and have written 3 stage musicals.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I'm not sure what this NEA is, but I get the gist. I think its very poor as well. The Arts are as important to society as say sport for example. If it is viewed as a trivial persuit or worthless, then cut out sports funding too. I couldn't give a rats arse if Cathy Freeman can never crack her 100 metre record. Just like sport orientated people couldn't give a shit if I finally mastered oil as a medium.

That said, there is a place for all these things in our society, all contributing to enriching us and our lives. Funding for all these things whether we like it or not, is important.

In my view.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Not everyone appreciates head start meal programs at school. Not everyone appreciates spending money on war. Not everyone agrees with spending money on art.

The fact of the matter is that for one thing that may offend you, there are SOOOO many things that you or anyone else would never get exposure to if it wasn't for the NEA. Opera, symphonies, Monet, Shakespeare. And up here in NYC, many of our art museums are not free. Without the NEA, you are further restricting the people who are able to view art. So you don't like it. So what? Some 10-year-old kid living in the projects may go to museum, be inspired by what is on the wall and actually DO something with his life. If he wants to be a poor starving but none the less ARTIST then he should have access to that.

On a side note, who do you think paid for the band that Larry Mullen Jr. marched in as a kid. Wanna make a bet it was subsidised by the government? and look where we are now.

You can hardly compare the importance of funding educational programs with funding someone to create offensive art. As nice as it may be to go to an art museum and look at the nice paintings, it's nothing compared to teaching a child to read.

Museums will survive without the NEA's help. There are a lot of wealthy philanthropists that would gladly shill out the big bucks if they felt their favorite museum was ablout to go under.

Let me ask you a question here. And be honest with your answer. Do you have a loved one? What if I painted a picture of your loved one (call him/her "Sam Sharky") covered in dung, called it "Sam Sharky", and hung it on the wall in the art gallery in your neighborhood. Then you find out that your very own tax dollars paid me to paint that? How would that make you feel? Remmber, be honest...

 

[kobayashi]

One person may chose, Military, Health, Education and other genres. Myself would chose the NEA, Education and Health. Why not the military? They'll get their funding. Millions of people support the military. So I'll take my money and give it to something that WON'T get support, like the NEA.

though i do agree with your position on funding for the arts, this is one of the most ill founded economic plans i have ever read. the 'people' dont have the information, nor can they, to make these types of decisions.

for example i am a canadian citizen and an employee of industry canada, a government regulator of many things industrial including radiocommunication. we control the spectrum on which canada's communications systems operate. few people outside of the 14th floor of this building in ottawa have a frikkin clue what we do, why we do it or even that it is done (including my own friends). this is because people don't understand. they have no reason to. under your system some broad topic, which in itself is misleading, like 'telecom regulation' would surely be inappropriately funded.

 

[U2Fan101]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Thanks btw U2Fan101

 

[80sU2isBest]

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]

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.

 

[verte76]

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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[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?

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

 

[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?

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[sue4u2]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

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