Bush Makes Me Mad/National Endowment of the Arts

[melon]

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.

You have the right to voice your opinion. I have the right to think it to be wrong.

Art in every Western nation gets government assistance. Period. The U.S. has the only self-supporting film industry, which is a good thing, except for the crap that can come out of it, and our music industry is self-supporting (well, not that we really have to worry about it that much, since most of our music industry is foreign-owned now).

If you want to know some irony, Republicans surely had no problem utilizing Canada's film subsidies. They went north and shot a very nationalistic film about Bush and 9/11--something that had nothing to do with Canada. I think it's currently in production, so we'll have to see if it ever surfaces here.

Anyhow, I think most of us have made our point. What's there to discuss? We obviously aren't going to come to a consensus. Since when do we ever (except for the revisionist history thread? )?

Melon

 

[melon]

If you want to know some irony, Republicans surely had no problem utilizing Canada's film subsidies. They went north and shot a very nationalistic film about Bush and 9/11--something that had nothing to do with Canada. I think it's currently in production, so we'll have to see if it ever surfaces here.

http://forum.interference.com/t77630.html

Melon

 

[U2Fan101]

.

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. [/B]

Why did Bach go to the bank?













Because he was Baroque! Hahaha...Ok...I'm lame.

 

[U2Fan101]

Why couldn't Mozart find his mentor?


Because he was Haydn!






What is the difference between a Clarinet and a Bassoon?

A Bassoon burns longer!

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Good one! I don't get the bassoon joke though. Fortunately, I happen to have a former Winnipeg Symphony bassoon player in the other room that I can ask about it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

(1)1) If your play was about all that, either you would be arrested for hate crime

(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.

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.

(1)I'll ask you a question you asked me...Don't YOU believe in freedom of speech?

(3)No, I am NOT opposed to freedom of speech. How you could even get that idea after reading my posts is absolutely beyond me. In fact, more than once I said that people have a right to paint whatever they want. I am in support of "Freedom of wallet".

(5)Do you know why I am "making such a huge issue of this"? Because someone started a thread posting their opinion on the subject in this forum, which is a forum for debate. Don't YOU believe in freedom of speech?

 

[80sU2isBest]

U2Fan101 ,
Very funny jokes!

 

[Bono's shades]

Does anyone know if some NEA funding goes to state arts councils? I don't hear much about NEA funding things locally, but our state arts council helps fund lots of things in our community.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

I can't believe you are asking me that question. Of COURSE I know that we both believe in freedom of speech. That wasn't the point at all! It was a COMPARISON!! An ANALOGY! A PARALLEL showing that all great principles, including freedom of speech for example, have their problems, usually as a result of one or two extreme maniacs who abuse the system, but that doesn't mean you cancel the whole thing! I thought I had made that abundantly clear...are you trying to wind me up on purpose?

Yes, this is a debate, but you aren't debating. You aren't explaining why government funding of arts is bad. All you are saying is that you want nothing to do with any part of it. That is not a discussion. You haven't even opened up a tiny crack to concede that we might have one or two good points. Maybe even if you thought that some arts funding is good, but some artists are so offensive they shouldn't have access to the funding...that maybe would be more of a discussion.

I am all for you having your opinion, but I wonder if you have read and really considered any of what we have been saying. Especially the economic factor. An investment in arts is an investment in everything. But it's obvious that no matter what we say, your mind is made up, so there's not much point discussing it further.

As for freedom of wallet, NO ONE has that. If everyone got to pick and choose which taxes they'd pay, you'd have a disaster. I don't have a car, but I still pay taxes that fix roads. You pay for things that need to get done!! And some things that don't too, unfortunately. It's the way it is. You can't please everyone. Seems you can't really please anyone either for that matter.

I gather that having a country (and by that I mean government) that values and supports its artists and leaves a cultural legacy for the future isn't high on your priority list. I will never understand that, but OK, it's your perogative.

 

[80sU2isBest]

(1)I can't believe you are asking me that question. Of COURSE I know that we both believe in freedom of speech. That wasn't the point at all! It was a COMPARISON!! An ANALOGY! A PARALLEL showing that all great principles, including freedom of speech for example, have their problems, usually as a result of one or two extreme maniacs who abuse the system, but that doesn't mean you cancel the whole thing! I thought I had made that abundantly clear...are you trying to wind me up on purpose?

(2)Yes, this is a debate, but you aren't debating. You aren't explaining why government funding of arts is bad. All you are saying is that you want nothing to do with any part of it. That is not a discussion. You haven't even opened up a tiny crack to concede that we might have one or two good points. Maybe even if you thought that some arts funding is good, but some artists are so offensive they shouldn't have access to the funding...that maybe would be more of a discussion.

(3)I am all for you having your opinion, but I wonder if you have read and really considered any of what we have been saying. Especially the economic factor. An investment in arts is an investment in everything. But it's obvious that no matter what we say, your mind is made up, so there's not much point discussing it further.

(4)As for freedom of wallet, NO ONE has that. If everyone got to pick and choose which taxes they'd pay, you'd have a disaster. I don't have a car, but I still pay taxes that fix roads. You pay for things that need to get done!! And some things that don't too, unfortunately. It's the way it is. You can't please everyone. Seems you can't really please anyone either for that matter.

(5)I gather that having a country (and by that I mean government) that values and supports its artists and leaves a cultural legacy for the future isn't high on your priority list. I will never understand that, but OK, it's your perogative.

(1)And you obviously don't get the point I was making! I wasn't asking just to ask, I was asking because you brought up freedom of speech and yet also brought up the writer of the non-existent play being jailed for free speech. I was trying to say that you can't have it both ways. And free speech isn't "exactly the same concept" as goevrnment funding of the arts, as you stated 2 posts ago. I am not agaisnt free speech or someone painting a painting. The difference, however, is that free speech is a concept, not a tex-funded program. With the NEA, I am paying people to produce art that is offensive to me. Can you not see the difference? And also, no, I'm not the one who starting winding teh other up. That was you, with your "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" statement.

(2) and (3): What's funny here is that I have been thinking the same thing about some of you. I know your points, and by now you know that I don't agree with those points (for example, "The country will be in a shambles if the NEA didn't exist"). I've been thinking this: "Why in the world would anyone not care that their money is being pilfered?" And to be honest, I frankly don't believe anyone when they tell me they wouldn't be mad as a hornet if they found out that their taxes had been used to pay for an offensive painting of one of their loved ones. You can tell me that all day, but I wouldn't believe it. To be honest, I think that if you walked into a museum, saw a very offensive painting of a loved one and weren't mad as heck that your taxes helped pay for it, I'd have to say there just might be something wrong with you.

(4)Do you ever travel in a car? Do you ever take a bus? Or do you stay off the roads completely? Taxes are used to fix the roads because it helps everyone who ever travels on a road. I'm sorry, but paying taxes to fund the NEA in its present state is not a necessity. I listen to music, watch movies, go to shows, and read books all the time that weren't funded by the government. If the government stopped funding the arts this very moment, the arts would not go away.

(5)I'm sorry, but this last statement of yours is just ridiculous. You have no way on this green earth of knowing what my values are. I love music, and I love books. The dismantling of the NEA woudl in no way cause our art legacy to deteriorate before our very eyes.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

if the government stopped funding the arts this very moment, the arts would not go away

No, but the opportunity for people who aren't wealthy to create art would if not go away, be limited.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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

Melon, that is not the only thing I have to worry about, believe me. I don't even think about it much unless someone brings it up. And then I voice my opinion. That's the case here...someone exercised his right to express anger at the cutting of NEA funds, so I exercised my right to diagree with him, here on this forum which was designed for such things. Why the crap does it bother you so much that I disagree with you?

 

[melon]

Melon, that is not the only thing I have to worry about, believe me. I don't even think about it much unless someone brings it up. And then I voice my opinion. That's the case here...someone exercised his right to express anger at the cutting of NEA funds, so I exercised my right to diagree with him, here on this forum which was designed for such things. Why the crap does it bother you so much that I disagree with you?

It doesn't bother me that much. I guess that text-based mediums don't cover emotional nuances!

Only one topic really infuriates me and the thread was closed. So I'm all good!



Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

You weren't infuriated with me in that thread, were you? You've known how I felt about that issue for a long time, but it seems to me that we always treated each other with respect about that.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

(1)And you obviously don't get the point I was making! I wasn't asking just to ask, I was asking because you brought up freedom of speech and yet also brought up the writer of the non-existent play being jailed for free speech.

I didn't mean he should be jailed for free speech, but for spreading hate propaganda.....but I see what you're saying.

The difference, however, is that free speech is a concept, not a tex-funded program.

Yes, free speech is a concept...and so is government funding of arts a concept. That is what I was saying. People who abuse free speech are as bad as people who abuse government funding. But I don't think you should get rid of either as a result of the few bad apples.

With the NEA, I am paying people to produce art that is offensive to me.

But as I said before, you are ALSO paying for waaaay more good than the one or two that are bad. We are talking like a millionth of a cent towards something bad....and you can think of it that your portion didn't go towards that.

That was you, with your "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" statement.

I wasn't trying to wind you up, I was being exasperated that you would have such a problem with this, when there are so many things that are so much worse that money is wasted on.

I don't agree with those points

OK, but which ones?? And why???

(for example, "The country will be in a shambles if the NEA didn't exist").

I didn't say the COUNTRY would be in a shambles, I said the arts would be in a shambles, which they would. I also think a major measure of greatness in a country is in their arts.

I've been thinking this: "Why in the world would anyone not care that their money is being pilfered?"

I don't think their money is being pilfered though. The vast majority of arts organizations practise extreme prudence with their spending and in producing the best quality work. Why do you keep painting everyone with the same brush???

And to be honest, I frankly don't believe anyone when they tell me they wouldn't be mad as a hornet if they found out that their taxes had been used to pay for an offensive painting of one of their loved ones.

Yes that may be true. But again, I would also be mad at someone saying something offensive about my loved ones, but I still believe in free speech, see? As I said before, complain to the artists in question, don't blame the whole system. Sure there's room for improvement in the system, but it doesn't mean you get rid of it. Imagine that one day you have a daughter who wants to be an opera singer, but she can't get the right professional training because the arts school went under. This is far more important than a few idiot artists with too much time on their hands.

(4)Do you ever travel in a car? Do you ever take a bus? Or do you stay off the roads completely?

OK, that was a poor example. But I would say that having arts available to everyone is just as important as having roads available to everyone. That is what I was trying to say. Things that are important to society as a whole.

I listen to music, watch movies, go to shows, and read books all the time that weren't funded by the government.

But I would hazard a guess that these filmmakers, musicians and authors benefited from a grant to get started. That's the point! Also, this sort of funding means people who can't afford to pay admission to museums, plays etc will have the opportunity to go. I can't understand why you don't see the value in this.

If the government stopped funding the arts this very moment, the arts would not go away.

Sure, some of them would survive, but they would be astronomically expensive, toys only for the rich. That's not what art is about.

(5)I'm sorry, but this last statement of yours is just ridiculous. You have no way on this green earth of knowing what my values are. I love music, and I love books. The dismantling of the NEA woudl in no way cause our art legacy to deteriorate before our very eyes.

Well, I do appreciate that you love music and books. That's why I can't understand your arguments. At all. I very strongly and respectfully disagree with the last sentence too.