Should art get government subsidies ...

[Revoltingest]

The difference is that the purpose of organizations like the NEA isn't to be utlizied by the government, but to operate as it's own entity and make the decisions on what exactly it is funding.

It's funny when one side is saying that the NEA is too anti-American, that creates "art" (quotation marks I've seen used for purposes of sarcasm) which amounts to trash and disrespects our governing bodies, and another side is saying that it's too propagandist FOR the government. There's the ornery side of me that playfully muses when one single, tiny, and seemingly insignificant organization manages to **** off both political sides of the spectrum, it must be doing something right.

True underlined dat!

 

[Alceste]

Do you mean funding exposition versus education?

I prefer to integrate the two. My students are generally working towards a public performance. That's the whole point, really. Showing off what you've learned is a major benchmark. Also, I teach in a community art gallery, which relies heavily on grant money for its operating budget.

I don't think it's useful to think of education and exposition as two separate things. There's too much overlap and inter-dependency.

 

[Alceste]

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that exhibition is part and parcel of the entire package. It's difficult to educate people on art without injecting the element of exposition.

For instance, I teach dance with a few elements in mind including what people are looking for. Right now, the most popular program is the "class card" system where students sign up for technique-only classes, and students are not given opportunities to perform or compete. So far, it's hands down our most popular option. People love coming to class just to move without any expectation of going on stage.

We do have dancers that are now enrolling into programs that put them on stage, however, which requires a whole new skill set and time commitment. I teach and develop the dancers, the instructors, and the show(s) based on the premise that there is a difference between learning how to move and learning how to perform with those movements.

Our last upsell program involves the full development of the performance technician into the artist, giving them tools for composition, critical analysis and observational skills, and discovering how they themselves are unique.

What we're seeing economically is that the masses are very content to invest in arts education. They want to learn how to move with balance, coordination, and to learn the latest hip hop moves and have fun.

What most people forget is that leading that class is an instructor who was required to be educated in performance in order to demonstrate and communicate the dynamics and the message of the movement. And leading the instructor is the director who was required to be educated in developing the whole artist in order to guide the staff/cast/crew in analysis and observation.

My point is that arts education does not live in a vacuum. Without a qualified instructor and/or director to teach how to dance, you get something like this:

[youtube]rfiM038VtJg[/youtube]
Learn Club Dance - Girls Night Out Preview! Club Skills to Dance Sexy - YouTube

And over time, the public begins to believe this is the pinnacle of dance education.

For comparison's sake, with a qualified instructor and a well funded arts community, you get stuff like this:

[youtube]4sMc-p19FIk[/youtube]
Great Chinese State Circus - Swan Lake - YouTube

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For comparison's sake, with a qualified instructor and a well funded arts community, you get stuff like this:

[youtube]4sMc-p19FIk[/youtube]
Great Chinese State Circus - Swan Lake - YouTube

Oh, yeah....I've posted that up a few times on FB. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

Oh, yeah....I've posted that up a few times on FB. :yes:

Maybe I'm over-sensitive due to being in bed with a cold, but both videos made me cry. I'll let you decide which was tears of amazement and which was tears of despair.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Maybe I'm over-sensitive due to being in bed with a cold, but both videos made me cry. I'll let you decide which was tears of amazement and which was tears of despair.

Word.

 

[Mathematician]

So you think libraries should be shut down?

I don't believe libraries are funded by the NEA.

To me the preservation of the human race should be one of the main concerns of any government, thus funding for space colonization, medicine, geology, engineering, computers, etc. should be the priority outside of social welfare programs.

That said I think the arts shouldn't be prioritized less than the social sciences. In fact I'd say art deserves more attention (outside of psychology). I don't like sociologists and anthropologists. =p

 

[MD]

If you had asked me this question a year ago I would've said hell no. But now with a further understanding that all of us have these beautiful subjective experiences that are inexplicable I would say yes, art and music should receive funding. It is the very essence of our existence, to feel, and we shouldn't stifle it.

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe libraries are funded by the NEA.

To me the preservation of the human race should be one of the main concerns of any government, thus funding for space colonization, medicine, geology, engineering, computers, etc. should be the priority outside of social welfare programs.

That said I think the arts shouldn't be prioritized less than the social sciences. In fact I'd say art deserves more attention (outside of psychology). I don't like sociologists and anthropologists. =p

Libraries are highly relevant to the general question of whether there should be state funding for the arts, unless you don't consider literature an art.

I agree with you that there should also be funding for the sciences and a public social safety net, in addition to funding for the arts. I'm even willing to tolerate public funding for sports, in consideration of the fact many of my fellow taxpayers love sports.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree....except when the artist is funded by the very government which needs an artistic spanking.

And there you perfectly illustrate the power of art.

Even you feel the potential threat of art being used "against" you and "for" someone else.

Which is why so many people want art unfunded... deep down they are afraid of it and don't want to feel challenged by it.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

Where are all the Rich Hollywood Liberals and the like and why aren't they funding private grants for the arts?

 

[painted wolf]

Where are all the Rich Hollywood Liberals and the like and why aren't they funding private grants for the arts?

I don't know about you, but I don't want the only people funding art to be "rich Hollywood liberals".

Besides, there is already quite a bit of funding through private foundations anyway. But private funding can only do so much and is generally very narrow in it's scope.

Should art only be funded by the patronage of the wealthy elite? Or is art something that should be available to everyone?

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

And there you perfectly illustrate the power of art.

Yeah, I don't want gov't funding for art because it will inevitably avoid biting the hand that feeds.

Which is why so many people want art unfunded... deep down they are afraid of it and don't want to feel challenged by it.

Or we don't want tax money taken from us & given to artists who cannot
make it on their own because no one is willing to pay them for it.

 

[Alceste]

And there you perfectly illustrate the power of art.

Even you feel the potential threat of art being used "against" you and "for" someone else.

Which is why so many people want art unfunded... deep down they are afraid of it and don't want to feel challenged by it.

wa:do

I wonder whether it is the result of subconscious childhood trauma after having their own creative inclinations brutally squashed by their parents, who were reacting to subconscious childhood trauma after having their own creative inclinations brutally squashed by their parents, who were.... etc. back to the puritans. Turtles all the way down!

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah, I don't want gov't funding for art because it will inevitably avoid biting the hand that feeds.

Only when the government gets stingy. Then they start trying to add "don't be offensive" criteria.

Or we don't want tax money taken from us & given to artists who cannot
make it on their own because no one is willing to pay them for it.

Or you don't realize how and where the money is being spent. And any spending that you don't personally approve of or understand becomes "wasting it".

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

And any spending that you don't personally approve....becomes "wasting it".

Of course!
Whose standard would I apply other than my own?

 

[painted wolf]

I wonder whether it is the result of subconscious childhood trauma after having their own creative inclinations brutally squashed by their parents, who were reacting to subconscious childhood trauma after having their own creative inclinations brutally squashed by their parents, who were.... etc. back to the puritans. Turtles all the way down!

Ah, the old "get a real job" response.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, the old "get a real job" response.

That's a valid criticism of artists slopping at the federal trough when they can't sell their work.
Government doesn't pay for my unprofitable hobbies, so I don't expect to pay for others'.

 

[painted wolf]

That's a valid criticism of artists slopping at the federal trough when they can't sell their work.
Government doesn't pay for my unprofitable hobbies, so I don't expect to pay for others'.

Again, you seem to not understand how the money is spent.

It's not welfare and the end result is a product produced under guidelines. You can't just claim to be an artist and get money... you have to demonstrate success beforehand. You propose a specific work to be done in a set timeline and budget. Again, you have to be a success beforehand, not an unprofitable hobbyist.

Or the money goes to fund community projects and education centers.

One more time... it isn't charity handed out to deadbeat wanna-be artists.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, I don't want gov't funding for art because it will inevitably avoid biting the hand that feeds.

Not so. The CBC, the NFB, and the Canadian Council for the Arts, though publicly funded, enjoy complete political autonomy. Their mandate is to generate or finance creative works by Canadians regardless of who is supposed to be running the country. Our Prime Minister hates the CBC so much that he had to launch his own TV station - Fox News North - to combat their award-winning, impartial, fact-based journalism. There's nothing he would like more than to de-fund them, since they report politically neutral facts rather than conservative propaganda, but he can't, because we're kind of attached to it. So the ruling conservatives launched Sun TV, modeled after Fox, to try to compete with it, but it has no viewers. Tragic, I know.

All of which goes to show you that "the hand that feeds" does not necessarily control the mouth that talks, particularly if the mandate of the mouth includes an explicit guarantee of political independence.

Or we don't want tax money taken from us & given to artists who cannot
make it on their own because no one is willing to pay them for it.

Hey, it's not our fault you'd rather watch Jackas$ than Planet Earth, rather listen to the Justin Bieber than the Royal Concertgebouw, rather look at porn than Picasso, and rather watch strippers than ballerinas.

Do you really want to live in a world where "art" consists of work like Jack-***, pop, strippers and pornography? I don't. I'd sooner bulldoze the whole stinking edifice of civilization to the ground and start over than accept that the value of art is determined by the price you idiots are willing to pay for it.