Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 07:32:32 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: National Endowment for the Arts...  (Read 1649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
National Endowment for the Arts...
« on: February 15, 2009, 04:30:55 PM »

...and other ways to generate great art when the "sponsor" knows next-to-nothing

I can explain some of the reason I do not support it. Many of the projects it sponsers are indecent, such as a play where the actors peed on the crowd while they held up plastic, and others where they make fun of various religions, etc. Many things that have been labeled art are simply trash. If they can't make money in theaters or art shows, they probably should not be made unless the artist simply is doing it for the love of his or her art. I have done many plays and concerts simply for that reason.To know that tax money is going to "art" that is offensive adds insult to injury. Those are just my reasons for not supporting it. If someone wants to donate private money to keep these things going, great, but it should not come out of my tax money.
Here's my problem with people who are generally, and sometimes rabidly, against the NEA over certain specific art projects that wind up receiving funding:

It can take a whole heck of a lot of chaff to find the golden grain of wheat.

Similar to scientific R&D, where a lot of money is spent on failed projects in order to find the viable breakthrough, a lot of crap gets produced in order to find the next great talent. And since there is little return to corporate investment in art, the only place that funding for budding artists can come is through public endowments.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. As much stuff as you or I are personally offended by, there is an audience for it. The small audience is not financially viable in the long-term, but theya re still entitled to their art, as well.

And that's why I not only support efforts like the NEA, but why I'm willing to take the time to explain why I find people's objection to it nearly as offensive as the worst product to come out of it.
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: National Endowment for the Arts...
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2009, 01:15:20 PM »

As an FYI, I went to the wikipedia page for the NEA to see if they had an easy link to the founding legislation, because my GPO search was full of fail, and it was rather unsurprisingly defaced. What the hell?

No one bags on the National Endowment for the Humanities nearly as much. Is that because they don't realize it exists?

The sheer level of ignorance and malice... mindbottling!
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: National Endowment for the Arts...
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2009, 08:26:47 AM »

As an FYI, I went to the wikipedia page for the NEA to see if they had an easy link to the founding legislation, because my GPO search was full of fail, and it was rather unsurprisingly defaced. What the hell?

No one bags on the National Endowment for the Humanities nearly as much. Is that because they don't realize it exists?

The sheer level of ignorance and malice... mindbottling!
   Both of these agencies are bloated government pork monsters. They are ways to reward political friends and those who spread your message through studies and "art". The grants are rarely given to any who liberals do not agree with. I still say, if there is no market for this "art" it probably is not worth a lot. If something is worth saving and putting on, let private investors put out their own money to support it instead of giving that money to politicians to get them elected so they can force tax payers to pay for it instead. Most of the money given to these things go back into the running of the government agencies that run it. It could be cut down considerably, not added to.
   What I think is funny is you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, yet as a liberal, you do not let anything weed itself out, because it is too weak to survive. Many of these "art" forms are not worth saving unless someone is willing to privately fund them. Let them die off.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 08:32:58 AM by Frigemall »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up