The SmithsoniansFollow

Why? Does living closer to something give you more rights to control it?

Read your constitution some time. It's not in their purview.

Um... Sure. But if I don't think that the dress is worth $150 because it's ugly, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it anyway, right? Just because the dress maker thinks their design was creative and whatnot, doesn't mean a damn thing if no one is willing to pay their own money for it.

Same deal here. If you make art that no one wants to buy and no one wants to pay to see, and even all the private art foundations and organizations are unwilling to put their own donated money into, perhaps it's not really worth anything. No one's saying you can't make it, on your own dime. But no one else should have to pay for it. That's the whole crux of this. The specific funding that people complain about is the NEA funds that go to support artwork creation directly. No one cares about funding a public museum with existing established works. It's the support of "artists" creating new art that no one wants.


Which is kinda exactly what this topic was originally about, right? Public money was used to put a display on specifically for artists who would not otherwise be put on display. How the hell can you argue that this isn't a waste of money? If they make art that someone thinks is good enough to pay for, then they don't need the government to fund them. if they don't make such art, then the government shouldn't pay to fund them. I'm not sure how much more I can dumb it down for you guys.

I vote we gut the whole arts wing and expand the air and space museum!

It's hard for Aussies to feel connected to the world when we're not talking about kangaroos or aborigines. They have to insert themselves in to other topics because otherwise they'd be standing on backroads shouting "OY!" at each other like a Foster's beer commercial.

And by "you guys" you mean, essentially, every first world nation (and many emerging nations) on Earth.

Because they all use government funds to display art.

Let me just re-emphasize the point for gbaji: we have money to support people - not the other way around.

To directly attack gbaji's position: votes choose to buy the art. Individually, they may not have the cash to own a fully stocked museum, but they choose to fund a place to share it with everyone.

All you have to do is vote it out. Or vote to make it self-funding - I'm no expert on the art world, but I think the Smithsonian is self-funding at this point (they have an endowment - probably this, if not their land, was originally granted by the government).

I am curious about that comparison. How is it welfare? They are working on a commission for pay, which is traditionally how artists work. It is my basic understanding of welfare that they are paid while not working, and that only proof of the search for employment is needed.

Mostly because it's not the same thing, but keep telling yourself that.

That by which we call welfare by any other name would still smell as sweet, dude. Let's call this alternate idea oh, I don't know, "schmelfare". Explain to me please, how does schmelfare differ from welfare in your mind?

You weren't kidding.

So what I'm getting here is that you believe that the government should limit itself to the letter of the law. You don't believe in room for interpretation, whereas I do. Got it.

Bob, no. I believe fundamentally in interpretation. I just happen to prefer mine to others'.


And that is where I find myself. Like I said in my initial response, it's the libertarian in me showing through. I'm not trying to be sneaky or underhanded, I just believe that a restricted central government is better for the country.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 3:27pm by MoebiusLord

Thought you lived in Canada.

/shrug

I assume Canada also supports the arts - probably more so then the US.

So let's take the US.

You say:



I could say this:

The US has significantly benefited from the Federal Government funding of the arts. The nation would be vastly poorer, culturally, without it.

And we would have equal evidence for our positions, that is to say none.

So let me provide what I feel is an incontrovertible argument against your position.

My understanding of "culture" is a bit hazy. For example, I feel NASA has made a contribution to American culture but I don't think most Americans would agree with that. So let me pick something middle of the road.

Anyhow, let me be specific: I have never seen a play in the US which was not by some means subsidized by some kind of government spending.

What I am not saying is that plays constitute the entirety of culture. However, I think that a nation which could not manage to produce a single play would be worse for it culturally and this is clearly sufficient to counter Moe's broad statement.

Since I find there were far more important news to follow, I didn't feel any need to try to educate the masses on something that already seems a done deal. Then I saw today's NY Times editorial on the OP.

No where in the OP, is the NEA mention and yet it's funding seems to overwhelm the posts, after Flea mentions how this show of weakness on those who run the Smithsonian is just a part of a pattern of reactionary cenorship due to a noisy faction. No one mentions that Boehmer threaten to use this privately funded exhibition in a Building that is own by the US people through a government that we supposedly control with our votes, as an excuse to look into government oversight of the Smithsonian, if they didn't pull the piece because a spokesperson for a group, who just happens doesn't represent the Catholic Church in America, feels it is degrading to what he feel is a symbol of their faith.

Why hasn't any other Sect of Christianity join Donahue and the Catholic League in their complaint against the art exhibit? Last I knew the Cross wasn't just a symbol for Catholics. Seems we give men like Donahue and his Catholic League far more power then they deserve.

Artist have alway relied on commissions from patrons, whither they be a private rich patron, government, or religious body (i.e. The Church) We gain patrons by trying to get our art into jury exhibits, who can be anyone the exhibit space appoints, wither an highly exclaimed art historian, critic, or their Aunt Martha. What most people forget is that what they may think is good or tasteful, isn't what the jurors may be looking for. Each exhibit is different and part of getting one's art notice is by trying to understand what the show's curator is looking for and creating your work to fit their criteria.

While historically commissioned art has been used to push the agenda of the patron, artist have always tried to push the envelop, either in their public work or what they did on the side for themselves and we forget wasn't normally sold until they either became famous enough the collectors didn't care about what establishment felt or the artist had been dead and the issue was no longer considered a problem by the so called experts, that we once gave it.

Tat said I have a closet full of artwork I did as a child and young student, that may end up either being discovered someday and so sought by collectors, or just forgotten until someday my heirs decide to throw it out with the rest of the rubbish they find in their attics. One think I never kidded myself was that I have any better chance, then most artists to be discovered in my lifetime. Back when I was in college, when I got asked what my major was, my answer was always Staving Artist, since the "Do you want Fries with that?" meme hadn't started in those days. Plus at Gino's we were suppose to ask if you wanted the salad bar with your burger, or KFC chicken.