I just didn't understand your reply to my question and that was all I could think of to voice my confusion. In regards to the explanation...well, that is different than taking money from that which it seeks to subvert. So, I understand...although Picasso's statement was a lie (a lie about lying from a perpetual liar?) by definition. Mona Lisa could easily be considered subversive, so don't worry about having to defend yourself. Also, technically government itself could be considered subversive and it certainly practices subversion, even through the electoral system, so it would only make sense that they supprt subversion (political or otherwise) in art.
Don't really want to be doing this, but I will (as one of my old company members used to say, "Talking about acting is like sh*tting about f*cking"). For a minute anyway. I didn't understand your original question either and my response was just another version of your "uh...yeah?" While I certainly agree that government often subverts the status quo, it is also the boss of the status quo. So if it does choose to subvert same, it's a little iffy to characterize that action as subversion -- the 'golden' rule (he who has the gold...) is in effect here. Not so with artists. (If I create a personal budget and then spend all my money on beer behind my back, I haven't exactly been robbed. Have you seen the recent Onion article about "self-abuse?" It's pretty funny.) But if the government is subversive, that doesn't mean it (or even wealthy people) enjoy subversion from without. Tartuffe was once a much more subversive play, in the overt sense, and was rewritten by Moliere after an edict from his government funders. I don't write a single thing except that I have a problem with the world. It might be a problem with the president, it might be a problem with a girl and it might be that the sunset's too pretty, but it's always a problem (again, please, in the most liberal definition). And when I ask someone to re-examine their world view (or view of a banana or a screwdriver or a tit), I'd just as soon not be beholden to them for my groceries or my beer. Tartuffe would have been (and was once) a better play, but the people Moliere sought to subvert were not as idiotic as the play suggested so they made him change it. Would that they hadn't had that kind of power.
I'd like to think art has evolved past the stages where it reflects the needs and tastes of Popes and Medici family members...what self-respecting artist would allow himself to be compromised by sucking on Goverment's teat? My girlfrriend survives by doing commissions here and there, and she hates even that. Uncle Sam should leave the art to artists, anyway. We Americans still have our collective panties in a bunch about federal funding of Mapplethorpe photos and Ten Commandments monuments in Alabama, for godsakes. Ah...If only Lenny Bruce had lived to be a Supreme Court Justice... Anyway, we should leave the goverment to mint money, build the military and roads and bridges and light rail and all the stuff bama said. If the federal goverment MUST spend some portion of our tax money on the arts, i'd rather see it go to states, to fund things like state theaters or public university scholarships (talent-based) for underprivledged students in the arts or something. Using artists as social workers doesn't benefit anyone, IMHO.
Batman, I understand what you meant about being beholden, because I see your point about Moliere, and I've seen people beholden to various producers and seen people cast in plays that didn't deserve to be cast, and plays and stagings changed that shouldn't have been. But at the same time I think whether it's govt. funded or privately funded the money people will almost always want a say in how things go down. Often the govt. funding is so spread out that they will have less of a say. Historically some of the best if not the best arts comes from govt. funding. This is especially true of the Renaissance, it's true of Classical Greek work, Shakespeare, Marlowe, etc. Not all of the time, but much of the time then the people funding the work were smart enough to give the artists money and get out of the way. They were often upset about it later, but the work was already done. speaking of playes and things anyone who is in or will be in NY around MArch 4 - March 21st will have the opportunity to see one of the pieces of I've written, or rather co-wrote being produced. I'll post about it in hangout when the time is closer. I know that there are some folks on the board in NY. But it is arts related and funding is always an issue so I thought I'd take this opportunity to plug the show.
nice article on NRO about this. i've never understood those who defend such projects as the chocolate and urine projects below as art the govenmen should fund. what's wrong with government funding including some sense of integrity? it's not that i think we shouldn't subsidise art that is subversive or that attacks the government- hell, that keeps us honest. it's just, as a former "artsist," i don't want government wasting my money on idiotic art any more than i want it paying to study cow flatulence . and speaking of "artists," horrible story about Spaulding Gray missing... http://nationalreview.com/comment/kimball200401291138.asp -- Farewell Mapplethorpe, Hello Shakespeare The NEA, the W. way. By Roger Kimball Under normal circumstances, the White House announcement that the president was seeking a big budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts might have been grounds for dismay. Pronounce the acronym "NEA," and most people think Robert Mapplethorpe, photographs of crucifixes floating in urine, and performance artists prancing about naked, smeared with chocolate, and skirling about the evils of patriarchy. Thanks, but no thanks. But things have changed, and changed for the better at the NEA. The reason can be summed up in two trochees: Dana Gioia, the distinguished poet and critic who is the Endowment's new chairman. Within a matter of months, Mr. Gioia has transformed that moribund institution into a vibrant force for the preservation and transmission of artistic culture. He has cut out the cutting edge and put back the art. Instead of supporting repellent "transgressive" freaks, he has instituted an important new program to bring Shakespeare to communities across America. And by Shakespeare I mean Shakespeare, not some PoMo rendition that portrays Hamlet in drag or sets A Midsummer Night's Dream in a concentration camp. (Check the website www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org for more information.) Mr. Gioia is moving on other fronts as well. He has hired a number of able deputies who care about art and understand that what the public wants is more access to good art — opera, poetry, theater, literature — not greater exposure to social pathology dressed up as art. After a couple of decades of cultural schizophrenia, the NEA has become a clear-sighted, robust institution intent on bringing important art to the American people. It's quite odd, really. People keep telling us — that is, professors and CNN commentators and Hollywood actors keep telling us — how very stupid President Bush is. Yet everywhere one looks he is supporting some of the most intelligent and dynamic people ever to occupy their cultural posts. Dana Gioia at the NEA, his counterpart Bruce Cole at the National Endowment for the Humanities, Leon Kass and his panel of distinguished scientists and philosophers at the President's Council on Bioethics (see their website www.bioethics.gov to get a sense of the good work they are doing on clarifying the enormous moral issues surrounding the debate over biotechnology). The Left keeps screaming about how dim George Bush is, but in the meantime, he has illuminated one area of public life after another with immensely talented and articulate people. There is plenty of room for debate about whether and to what extent government should be directly involved in funding culture. But there can be no argument that if we are going have public support of the arts, it should be done in an enlightened and life-affirming way. This is the George Bush approach to cultural reinvigoration. Conservatives — by which term I mean people who are interested in conserving what is best from the past — should applaud his efforts. After years in the wilderness, the NEA has finally come home.
I read that about Spaulding Gray. I'm really bummed out about it. When My wife told me that he had disappeared and was most likely dead, I didn't want to believe it. It's really strange.
What about Motzart or Beethoven? What about Robert Frost or Maya Anjalou? What about Leonardo Da Vinci or Vincent Van Gogh? What about Duke Ellington or Django Rhinehart? What about the architects who designed Westminster Abbey or the Eiffel Tower? Amazingly enough, there is more to art than Robert Mappelthorpe and crucifixes in urine.
Agreed. I'm glad to see he is doing this just like I'm very happy with the space initiative. I'm not a fan of a lot of things our President and his administration have done, but these are two things that really impress me.
Just so you know, the government didn't fund those things the way you seem to think they did. Just as a quick example Serrano won a grant/award from a museum (LACMA, I believe) that had been given some government aid for that budget year. The aid was not for the specific award/grant, but they (LACMA) did use some of the funds, I believe. During the year after Serrano won he produced his "Pissed" series of found objects.
if that's the case, then my bad. i was under the impression he'd received an NEA grant. point still stands, however. government can fund the arts, and have certain minimum standards of what constitues art. for instance, by all means governemt should fund this, even if they're producing a play that is political in nature. but not if said play involves dung smeared on a crucifix. sometimes **** is just ****...
Like the new immigration policies, this is an obvious election time tactic. Regardless, I'm happy to hear it, although there ain't a damn person that is remotely related to any artistic activities I know of that wants Bush in office no matter what he does with the NEA. Exept basso. The only opera singer I know, out of hundreds, that supports him. Takes all types, I guess. Great posts, Batman Jones. So much to discuss. Look, first of all, I have to agree with the financial conservatives here, when we have massive record deficits the last thing we should do is look to spend more money. But I do believe that government has a place in supporting art. If you force art to survive on commercial success alone, it often ceases to be art. If you force artists to conform to what is popular in order to survive, you get pop art/trash. Of course, the money will only go to support terribly safe stuff like Shakespeare and jazz, which everybody loves. Sorry if I sound bitter- if Shakespeare and jazz now reach a wider audience that would hear/see them otherwise, that's great. But for god's sake, it isn't the Shakespeare festivals and jazz festivals that are floundering. It's taking risks on individuals that counts, giving a potential genius the opportunity to eat and pay rent and focus on their own art without having to compose ******* commercial jingles or paint lame corporate promos. Of course, that won't happen since the 'scandals' of the 90's. I can sympathize with people who don't know much about the effect of art on culture and society, and how they wouldn't want their tax dollars supporting art/artists they don't know or care for at all. Thank god we have a tax system that allows wealthy patrons to get tax breaks on supporting the arts, otherwise american 'culture' would become even more asinine and banal, reduced utterly to what is popular, buyable, commercially viable. In my opinion, if you want to have the greatest artistic impact on the future of america, fund arts education in our schools.
They didn't exactly go to the federal govt. for money, now did they? I know what art and I know that art is a positive part of society. But should it be funded with tax dollars at the Federal level. No.
Motzart's patron was the King of Austria. Robert Frost was the US poet lauriet. The Westminster Abbey was commissioned by the royal family of England. The arts have ALWAYS been subsidised by governments throughout history. Sometimes, it was due to vanity or glory-seeking by the government or matriarchy. Other times, it was simply out of the recognition that it is an essential part of humanity. I assume then that you also think the Smithsonian, the National Museum of Art, every publically-funded symphony, opera, ballet and museum should be closed down in favor of only private funding? You see NO positive benefits of preserving artistic history or supporting art as an extension of ourselves? If not, I'm glad you are in the minority.
That's not a role of our Constitutional govt. to fund the arts. Being the poet laureate is just a title here and I doubt Robert Frost got a grant. Why do you need money to write poems? You're twisting what I said, the FEDERAL govt. should not be in the business of taking my money out of my paycheck in Georgia and distributing to the arts across the country. If you want the state/local govt. to fund arts in your community, fine. But just don't do it with my federal tax dollars.
There are LOTS of things not in the constitution that we provide for and with good reason. But, to each his own.
