i can't believe W actually thinks he's going to win any votes with this, and he's no doubt aware he's going to piss some people off on the right. after all, a mind sinister enough to deceive the entire world over the iraq war surely is capable of making the simple electoral calculus demanded here. isn't it possible he believes in the arts and wants to support them? saying so won't make you a supprter of bush (after all, he's evil- shudder)...
Max, does this mean that you continue to support Bush? Not much of a bounce from the Moon-Mars thing I guess.
This kind of reminds me of the AIDS money for Africa, but it's less money for a far less important cause. I'm for it because there should be more money for the arts. I'm against it partly because we have the largest deficit we've ever had (I guess when you guys on the right talk about "essential" spending, you're talking about giving more money to rich people) and mostly because the NEA long since stopped serving any significant function in the arts, thanks to the GOP. rimrocker's basically right. This money goes to something akin to crafts. The entire NEA budget amounts to a zit on the back of an elephant or whatever T_J called this increase. But even though it's not much money the way it's allocated is a bigger problem than the budget size. Around the time of the scandals, the NEA eliminated grants to individual artists altogether and resolved only to fund non-profit organizations. The grants to individual artists used to be the backbone of the program. Non-profits can go a number of places for funding -- foundations, corporations, individual donors -- because the donations are tax deductible. Individual artists have far fewer places to go, relying on contests, fellowships and local government (in Houston, the maximum award a musician, poet, playwright, painter, etc. can expect to receive is $5,000 every two years -- or it was that two years ago -- it's probably lower now). Even worse, they attached what I call a 'good deed' clause to every grant. In other words, you now have to explain what non-art service you're providing to receive a grant. Some cradle AIDS babies, some do plays about math in underserved neighborhoods, etc. When Bill Ivey (the country music guy from Nashville) was running the NEA I heard him speak at a theater conference in San Francisco. He said he was glad to see that arts orgs were getting the picture that they had to provide some tangible service to their communities other than art. He explained that the political climate was such that arts orgs needed to prove their value in order to be funded. Explicit in this was the idea that the making of art, even art broadly considered to be good and important, was not a qualifying value and would not be funded without some sort of social service component. I've always considered these social programs to be of far greater import than the arts. And I've always said, please cut half the funding to the arts and give it to more important, life-and-death, causes. Then take the half that's left and fund art and only art. It makes no sense to send artists out to be big brothers or nurses. They're not trained in that. And it makes no sense to waste arts money on untrained social workers. I read that article yesterday and noticed that the money was meant to be directed to programs like Shakespeare in the park and Jazz or Blues fests. Cause, you know, those sorts of programs never get funding. They might as well give the money to Beatlemania or knitting classes for underprivileged grandmothers. I've always been of two minds about government arts funding. I think it's important that the arts be funded in order that they not be corrupted by commercial interests. (Peter Hall makes a great case for subsidy in his book The Necessary Theatre.) But all good art is, by its nature, subversive. And it's always struck me funny that it should receive its funding from the very structure it seeks to subvert. Anyway, sure, give em the money. Give everyone money. Bush is the biggest spender of all time (even though somehow he still can't manage to fund No Child Left Behind). Why not give em the money? But don't think for a minute it'll change a single vote. Artists are generally well educated. And the well educated would generally rather have Bush out of office than any other single thing.
i'm not a big anti-nea guy, really. but my support for bush was waning otherwise. nominate edwards, and we'll talk!
Fine. I'll tell them they can spend some of my dollars and save some of yours for a $150 million Republican pork-barrel bridge in some backwater. Seriously getting upset over an agency that spends $150 to improve the culture and quality of life in our country? It's probably one of the best uses of small funds in the budget. And yes, it's small. It's 0.007% of our $2.2 TRILLION dollar budget. If you take home 50k/year, it's like worrying about a $3.41 expense. If you're really concerned about spending, worry about the other $49,996.59 .
A bridge actually contributes something to the economic well-being of a "backwater," as you deride the South. What these whackjobs call art contributes no good to society except to waste money that could go to more logical uses, like giving me back more of my own money to spend as I see fit. I oppose it not on the amount, which I admit is puny, but on the principle that the govt. should not be in the business of funding art.
This is fantastic news. The arts -- and our appreciation of them -- are what make us human. An increase of $15 million is relatively small, but it's a wonderful move in the right direction. I whole-heartedly applaud the decision.
Actually, the bridge I recall was in the midwest, and it was on a nearly untraveled road. They claimed to be 'planning ahead' for future growth. The government should be in the business of improving quality of life. Arts may not improve your quality of life if all you need is a convenience store on each street corner and a billboard to tell you where the next auto dealer is, but for many others, and for millenia, art is crucial. And the reason I mention the size of the expense is because it is high bang-for-buck vs what else we spend our money on. I wouldn't be for the federal gov spending a billion on art, but $150 million is a good amount.
In that case, that is waste just as this is a waste. There is nothing in the Constitution that compels the Feds to take money from me to give to people to smear chocolate all over their bodies in the name of art, stick crucifixes into bottles of the artist's urine, and other things the idiot cocktail party crowd considers "art." The govt. is not supposed to be in the business of improving the quality of life, especially when it costs mine and your tax dollars. The govt. exists solely to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to prevent people within this country (criminals) and outside invaders from depriving of those rights. Anything else not falling under those dictates is extra-constitutional.
I think Bush should contribute money to subsidize the Houston Rockets. After all they can be considered a type of low culture tyep of artistic endeavor for Joe six-pack and the denizens of cc. net.
Originally posted by bamaslammer In that case, that is waste just as this is a waste. There is nothing in the Constitution that compels the Feds to take money from me to give to people to smear chocolate all over their bodies in the name of art, stick crucifixes into bottles of the artist's urine, and other things the idiot cocktail party crowd considers "art." It's far more than just the 'idiot cocktail party crowd' that appreciates art. It's undeniably one of the gifts of mankind. As for the urine filled glasses, don't throw the baby out... The govt. is not supposed to be in the business of improving the quality of life, especially when it costs mine and your tax dollars. The govt. exists solely to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to prevent people within this country (criminals) and outside invaders from depriving of those rights. Anything else not falling under those dictates is extra-constitutional. The people determine what the government should do, but even in your definition (life, liberte, happiness), I would be most unhappy in a society w/o Art.
Cohen, You are not making a valid point, because I don't have a problem with art and also realize the pitfalls of a society minus art. But using tax dollars to subsidize it? I just don't think that has anything with the constitutional role of govt.
Cohen: If I remember it right, bama's a Libertarian by nature (correct me if I'm wrong, slammer). He probably wouldn't consider education to play a constitutional role in government either. I'm almost sure he doesn't believe health care does. As such, I'm not too concerned about his position on federal arts funding.
Well, rats. Guess I gotta explain then. Didn't mean subversion in any particularly political way or even necessarily a social one. Good art ideally provides a fresh perspective, in the most liberal sense, to its audience. To me that is subversive. A former board president for Da Camera once said to me that they had a much easier time collecting funds for their brand of subversion as chamber music is more abstract than theater simply because it's not in English. I use the term subversive in the way that it might be applied to chamber music or even the Mona Lisa (I'm not an art history guy, so please don't ask me to defend that). Picasso said art was telling a lie to tell the truth. The sort of truth that art provides through the lens of a lie -- the fresh perspective -- is subversive to me in subtle, abstract or explicit ways, but it is still subversive in the same way that Godot is political without ever espousing an overtly political idea.
