Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
NEA Chief: Don't Hate on Arts Funding Just Because You Think We're Gay
The New York Times this weekend ran an interview with the new National Endowment for the Arts Chairman, the wonderfully named Rocco Landesman. Whose "straight-talking style, Missouri roots and affinity for baseball and country music," we are reliably assured, "are expected to give him a leg up with many legislators."
Just don't oppose stimulus NEA spending, you homophobes!
He was particularly angered, he said, by parts of the debate over whether to include $50 million for the agency in the federal stimulus bill, citing the comment by Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, on CNBC's "Squawk Box" in February, that arts money did not belong in the bill. That kind of thinking suggests that "artists don't have kids to send to college," Mr. Landesman said, "or food to put on the table, or medical bills to pay."
In American politics generally, he added: "The arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay."
Italics in the original. Lord knows why.
For those of you who believe that unicorns flying in
the same direction can bring forth the Singularity
money taken from one set of taxpayers and redistributed to artists
can magically end up producing multiple times the original amount
in economic impact, good news! Rocco wants to spend!
Though he would not put a dollar figure on his own fiscal goals, he called the current appropriation of $155 million "pathetic" and "embarrassing." [...]
"We're going to be looking for funding increases that are more than incremental," he said. [...]
Mr. Landesman said that as chairman he will focus on the potential of the arts to help in the country's economic recovery.
"I wouldn't have come to the N.E.A. if it was just about padding around in the agency," he said, and worrying about which nonprofits deserve more funds. "We need to have a seat at the big table with the grown-ups. Art should be part of the plans to come out of this recession."
"If we're going to have any traction at all," he added, "there has to be a place for us in domestic policy." [...]
The new chairman said he already has a new slogan for his agency: "Art Works." It's "something muscular that says, 'We matter.'" The words are meant to highlight both art's role as an economic driver and the fact that people who work in the arts are themselves a critical part of the economy.
Link via The Corner. Greg Beato wrote about NEA subsidies in the stimulus back in the May issue.
Fluffy|8.10.09 @ 9:11AM|#
If it's all about welfare and stimulus spending, hire these
artists to dig holes and then fill them in again.
I'd rather see $450 million spent on that than $155 million spent
on "art".
The public arts community is a reserve army of collectivism,
statism, and just about every other -ism that I despise. If they've
got the sack to demand make-work welfare, I can live with giving it
to them but I'd rather see that money truly lost than see it go to
produce "art" content. Giving these people money for anything other
than ditch-digging lets them masquerade as members of the creative
class and lets them parley that into a perch from which they can
sing about their little -ism's. Nobody does PBS retrospectives or
writes magazine articles about the opinions of ditch-diggers, but
"artists" are a different story.
Kevin|8.10.09 @ 9:18AM|#
As a member of the "arts community", I am continually at odds with the majoriy who goes on and on about grants and federal funding. In my opinion, if your art is any good you'd be making money off it. Meanwhile, make sure you have a day job to pay the bills. For some reason a lot of artists feel they are entitled to get paid to produce something nobody wants.
Wade|8.10.09 @ 9:19AM|#
Last year all I heard about was stimulus money to rebuild infrastructure. About bridges collapsing. What the hell happened to that. Welding is an art. Make them get off their ass and learn to weld.
|8.10.09 @ 9:19AM|#
I've always found the arts to be fabulous
And yes, it does come out that way when I say it. Why?
Pendulum|8.10.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Well, he's quite perceptive. There is an "arts are for pansies"
spirit that seems to underlie much of the conservative criticism of
NEA funding.
Arts funding is a trifle compared to Medicare (or virtually any
government program of note), but it receives a massively
disproportionate share of conservative invective.
Kyle Jordan|8.10.09 @ 9:24AM|#
"That kind of thinking suggests that "artists don't have kids to
send to college," Mr. Landesman said, "or food to put on the table,
or medical bills to pay."
Well maybe if these artists went out and got a fucking real job and
useful skills they could afford to do those things instead of
leeching off of the hard work of others.
Faggots. (This part's a joke BTW)
|8.10.09 @ 9:25AM|#
For some reason a lot of artists feel they are entitled to
get paid to produce something nobody wants.
The free market is a bitch when you suck at what you do.
|8.10.09 @ 9:30AM|#
That's right boitches, if you oppose Obama you are either a racist, homophobe or, mostly likely, both.
|8.10.09 @ 9:31AM|#
For some reason a lot of artists [GM & Chrysler
workers] feel they are entitled to get paid to produce something
nobody wants.
|8.10.09 @ 9:35AM|#
That kind of thinking suggests that "artists don't have kids
to send to college," Mr. Landesman said, "or food to put on the
table, or medical bills to pay."
According to Mr. Landesman, everybody in America should get federal
subsidies, because everyone has to put food on their families,
etc.
In the spirit of the times, I must demand:
"Where's mine?"
|8.10.09 @ 9:35AM|#
Small potatoes. The government is hemorrhaging from three arteries and your worried about the NEA picking the scab off the scraped knee? Sure go ahead, have mommy kiss it and put a band-aid on it.
Wicks Cherrycoke|8.10.09 @ 9:36AM|#
Landesman's comments about spending on arts being "part of the plans to come out of this recession" sound fishy to me. Let's report him to flag@whitehouse.gov.
T|8.10.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Arts funding is a trifle compared to Medicare (or virtually
any government program of note), but it receives a massively
disproportionate share of conservative invective.
Medicare doesn't try to offend people, but the folks getting NEA
grants often do. Yes, it's a tempest in a teapot, but when you set
out to offend the rubes and hicks, you really can't bitch when it
works.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Ok, i had never read Atlas Shrugged until about a year
and a half ago. I found the characters to be stilted, unrealistic,
and in the case of the protagonists, unrelatable; the villains were
all unbelievable cartoonish strawmen.
So why the fuck are Rand's caricatures running the country now?
|8.10.09 @ 9:43AM|#
It would be hard to support because if there is no handout,
there will still be art and plenty of it.
Art is not opposed because it is gay, but people don't want to
support financially something they don't support. And a lot of the
art that comes out of the NEA funding is not just uninteresting,
but disgusting or silly. Let individuals support it if they will,
but don't spend tax dollars that could be best spent
elsewhere.
Government needs to get out of the art business. It never belonged
there.
|8.10.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Art and artists have always required patronage, and the value of art hasn't traditionally been considered just how much you can sell it for.
|8.10.09 @ 9:47AM|#
"Government needs to get out of the art business"
Government needs to get out of business.
FIFY
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 9:48AM|#
Government needs to get out of the ________ business. It
never belonged there.
Fill in the blank:
auto
education
banking
postal
highway
agriculture
pharmaceutical
railroad
etc.
etc.
etc.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.10.09 @ 9:48AM|#
So why the fuck are Rand's caricatures running the country
now?
The inevitable result of a bankrupt ideology?
|8.10.09 @ 9:49AM|#
"Art and artists have always required patronage..."
So you support the arts. Do steal from me to support your
hobbies.
I support real charities, that help real people and ducks. Fuck
artists that can't make a living being artists.
P.S. My son is a welder. He makes enough money as a welder to
support his family and his art hobby.
Abdul|8.10.09 @ 9:50AM|#
I started hating artists for their federally funded entitlements, but I really got passionate about it for the homophobia.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 9:52AM|#
Hey, nobody make fun of Tony anymore. He's been coming to this site for months now and he STILL doesn't know what a libertarian is; the only explanation at this point is some kind of mental imbalance or brain deformity. He can't help how he is, so it's not fair to mock him.
|8.10.09 @ 9:52AM|#
Xenoes,
Doesn;t the constitution state that the federal government is
supposed to be in the postal business? (I may be wrong)
If I am correct we can argue, like defense, about how much postal
business the government should supply, but not about whether they
should be in the biz.
|8.10.09 @ 9:52AM|#
If just one fucking troll would come here with even the simplest understanding of the difference between voluntary action and involuntary action it would be a banner goddamn day.
Tomcat1066|8.10.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Art and artists have always required patronage, and the
value of art hasn't traditionally been considered just how much you
can sell it for.
And just who were these patrons? Rich people who chose to
patronize the arts, not the masses as a whole who are required to
act as "patron" to a group of people who view most of them with
disdain.
|8.10.09 @ 9:53AM|#
"What a depressing world you guys want to live in."
Just for you, I'm changing the name of my sculpture (and handle) to
Piss Tony.
|8.10.09 @ 9:56AM|#
And being supported by a patron while you produce art for him is a form of selling art. So patronage was an evaluation of the artists abilities based on how much his art could sell for. Shitty artists didn't have patrons and had to work as artisans or (worse still) grunt labor.
Jordan|8.10.09 @ 9:57AM|#
What a depressing world you guys want to live in.
Art couldn't possibly exist without government funding!
Preposterous!
Hey, I love video games. Why don't game studios deserve a subsidy
too?
|8.10.09 @ 9:58AM|#
He's been coming to this site for months now and he STILL doesn't know what a libertarian is
Not agreeing with you is not the same thing as not understanding
you.
A libertarian apparently is a person who finds it incomprehensible
that there are other opinions, and when confronted with one finds
it reasonable to tell them to "shut the fuck up."
|8.10.09 @ 9:59AM|#
And the government/taxpayer as patron doesn't work at all considering that art produced by an NEA grant is neither owned by the government or automatically in the public domain.
Tomcat1066|8.10.09 @ 9:59AM|#
"What a depressing world you guys want to live in."
Oh yeah. A world where artists are driven to perform better and
better works of art in the hopes of supporting themselves with it -
sort of like how most of the great artists of history had to do it
- would be so depressing. I mean, what would we do with more people
like Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dega, Dali, Piccasso, Mondrian, Monet,
and their like REALLY do to provide great works of art? I mean,
really?
It would be dull.
Citizen Nothing|8.10.09 @ 9:59AM|#
I found the characters to be stilted, unrealistic, and in
the case of the protagonists, unrelatable;
I always thought we were supposed to be relating to Eddie Willers.
Weren't we?
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Tony - actually, most of us have engaged plenty of dissenting
opinions without telling the holders thereof to "shut the fuck up".
The difference was is that they actually wanted a
dialogue. You have yet to demonstrate any understanding of
libertarianism, what it is, what it's good points are...nothing!
And every time something, anything!, comes up, you reflexively jump
in on the statist side (except the war on drugs, you're good about
that).
So, yeah, shut the fuck up.
|8.10.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Tomcat1066,
Not a single one of those artists could be described as
entrepreneurs. Some of the best artists are horrible
businesspeople, and often die penniless. And the idea that there's
some sort of supply/demand equation relating to the quality of art
is really tenuous. All I'm saying is that it's not outlandish to
believe the government should provide some support for the arts.
But I'm just and old fashioned kind of guy who believes that pride
in one's culture, and public support of advancing it, is a good
thing.
|8.10.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Why don't game studios deserve a subsidy too?
Noooooooo. Jordan, game studios produce interesting and continually
innovative products. A subside would allow them to lay back and
rest on their laurels.
WE WOULD STILL BE PLAYING PONG if they were subsidized.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:06AM|#
ConservativeDouche, unlike, say, the 2nd Amendment, the idea of
a government-run postal system is probably obsolete at this point
in history, there being no way the Founders could have anticipated
email, FedEx, etc. We'd probably have to do away with it via
amendment, though. Which is fine; it would go well with the repeal
of the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Before any leftist anklebiters, um, bite my ankles over the
obsolescence of the 2nd due to the "militia" clause: the first two
amendments are checks on government overreach, and thus will NEVER
be obsolete. If the 1st Amendment fails to contain tyranny, you
exercise the 2nd. The Founding Fathers themselves amply
demonstrated this principle what with the whole "revolution"
thing.
|8.10.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Try not to get shit stains on that American flag you just wrapped yourself in, fuckcicle.
|8.10.09 @ 10:07AM|#
TAO,
I consider myself a libertarian with respect to some issues. I
usually don't comment on posts I agree with for the same reason I
usually don't comment at Huffingtonpost. I don't get much out of a
circle jerk. What pisses me off is when right-wing ideologues
masquerading as champions of freedom lecture me about what a
libertarian is and isn't.
Solanum|8.10.09 @ 10:07AM|#
My girlfriend (who's an artist) works a regular 40 hour a week job and still finds the time to paint, without taking a single penny from the taxpayers to do it. Funny how that works.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:08AM|#
But I'm just and old fashioned kind of guy who believes that
pride in one's culture
...LoneWacko?!?
|8.10.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Xeones,
So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle' (though
certainly not the reality) that the people can start a revolution
should it be necessary?
Fluffy|8.10.09 @ 10:11AM|#
What a depressing world you guys want to live in.
Tony, would you still find opposition to state arts subsidies
"depressing" if I, personally, was in charge of picking who got
each and every grant?
Give me the grant pool. I will use it to support writers putting
out bad copies of The Fountainhead, "Capitalist Realist"
sculpture, murals and photography, and PBS documentaries about how
evil Robert LaFollette was.
And the guys who get my grants will be able to use that to pad
their resumes so they get additional foundation funding, academic
jobs, museum positions, etc.
Still think opposing the NEA would be "depressing" under those
circumstances?
|8.10.09 @ 10:11AM|#
"So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle'
(though certainly not the reality) that the people can start a
revolution should it be necessary?"
I'd settle for just one...
WWJGD|8.10.09 @ 10:13AM|#
"So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle'
(though certainly not the reality) that the people can start a
revolution should it be necessary?"
Because with nationwide gun bans, no one would ever shoot another
person. Ever.
|8.10.09 @ 10:13AM|#
"So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle'
(though certainly not the reality) that the people can start a
revolution should it be necessary?"
So this is what being a better libertarian than us looks
like?
This board needs a better class of troll.
|8.10.09 @ 10:14AM|#
So millions of dead gun victims are worth the
'principle'
I gotta get my hands on a threadjack wand that powerful. I'd be
unstoppable.
Kyle Jordan|8.10.09 @ 10:15AM|#
"Go stick a yam up your granny's ass, Tony."
You feelin' ok there SF? I don't recall reading you this curt
before.
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Tony - millions? Cite the millions of deaths, please, due to
citizens holding guns.
And, despite your outright manufacturing of the numbers, yes, it is
worth it.
Anyway, you're getting the West Point-style silent treatment until
you shape the fuck up.
|8.10.09 @ 10:16AM|#
he called the current appropriation of $155 million
"pathetic" and "embarrassing."
And here I was thinking we wouldn't have anything in common.
-jcr
Kyle Jordan|8.10.09 @ 10:16AM|#
"So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle'
(though certainly not the reality) that the people can start a
revolution should it be necessary?"
Yes.
|8.10.09 @ 10:17AM|#
I consider myself a libertarian with respect to some
issues.
Just like a ham and cheese sandwich considers itself kosher,
right?
-jcr
|8.10.09 @ 10:18AM|#
All I'm saying is that it's not outlandish to believe the
government should provide some support for the arts
Maybe they should. Propose a constitutional amendment to permit
such a thing, and see if you can get it ratified. I'll be opposing
it, of course.
-jcr
|8.10.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Not a single one of those artists could be described as
entrepreneurs. Some of the best artists are horrible
businesspeople, and often die penniless. And the idea that there's
some sort of supply/demand equation relating to the quality of art
is really tenuous. All I'm saying is that it's not outlandish to
believe the government should provide some support for the arts.
But I'm just and old fashioned kind of guy who believes that pride
in one's culture, and public support of advancing it, is a good
thing. - Tony
Tony, you know nothing about art. It's all the suffering that makes
the work great.
Arts funding is a trifle compared to Medicare (or virtually any
government program of note), but it receives a massively
disproportionate share of conservative invective. -
Pendulum
Almost everything in the budget is a small fraction of the total or
of the largest expenditures. That argument is dragged out to
justify every little program, of which there are about ten
thousand. And (hehe) that is the kind of thinking that brings us
trillion dollar budgets. Maybe that's the plan?
Tomcat1066|8.10.09 @ 10:19AM|#
"Not a single one of those artists could be described as
entrepreneurs. Some of the best artists are horrible
businesspeople, and often die penniless. And the idea that there's
some sort of supply/demand equation relating to the quality of art
is really tenuous. All I'm saying is that it's not outlandish to
believe the government should provide some support for the arts.
But I'm just and old fashioned kind of guy who believes that pride
in one's culture, and public support of advancing it, is a good
thing."
They died penniless because they couldn't manage their money, but
their desire to produce better works of art came not from something
we can relate to...hunger. Not hunger for better art, but trying to
put food in their stomach ;)
And actually, there is supply/demand involved in art. It's in
anything that's sold. A quality artist who doesn't produce as much
art will have his pieces yield a much higher price. That's the
reason a dead artists work shoots up in value. It's because there
will be no more work, so the supply is now set more or less (only
because new works may surface after his death).
And to argue that you're old fashioned because you want government
intervention into something the government has no place in just
made me literally laugh out loud. Seriously? I didn't know you were
a comedian! I guess that makes me the new and modern type because I
don't want my tax dollars going for art, but will happily put my
personal funds out for quality artwork. ;)
Jordan|8.10.09 @ 10:19AM|#
"So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle' (though certainly not the reality) that the people can start a revolution should it be necessary?"
Yeah lets make people subject to the mercy of criminals instead.
What a depressing world you want to live in.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:21AM|#
See, Tony is a mental case. Let's all politely ignore his feces-flingings, and move on with our lives.
Solanum|8.10.09 @ 10:24AM|#
I think Tony's redneck boyfriend came home drunk last night and went upside his head just a little too hard.
Citizen Nothing|8.10.09 @ 10:24AM|#
I usually don't comment at Huffingtonpost
I'd really like to see some of Tony's "libertarian" posts at the
Huff.
|8.10.09 @ 10:25AM|#
"but will happily put my personal funds out for quality artwork.
;)"
Me too. I have comissioned community art works. It's really neat to
be able to see a work of art being enjoyed by the masses and say -
I paid for that!
Noblesse oblige rocks!
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 10:26AM|#
'Arts funding is a trifle compared to Medicare (or virtually any
government program of note), but it receives a massively
disproportionate share of conservative invective.'
There are several explanations for this:
-Medicare and similar programs can be pitched (rightly or wrongly)
as designed to help the helpless - the poor, the crippled, the
aged, the children, the seriously ill. In contrast, pitching aid to
artists as a social-welfare program for the poor oppressed artists
doesn't pass the giggle test, especially when said artists want to
behave like spoiled adolescents, leeching off the bourgeoisie and
epateeeing (sp?) them at the same time.
-Many conservatives are New Dealers in drag - they love income
redistribution on behalf of people they like, but they retain
traditional cultural attitudes in many respects, so they are
against income redistribution on behalf of some artist who thinks
the avant-garde is boringly reactionary.
'If it's all about welfare and stimulus spending, hire these
artists to dig holes and then fill them in again. . . .
'Nobody does PBS retrospectives or writes magazine articles about
the opinions of ditch-diggers, but "artists" are a different
story.'
I think you underestimate the creativity of the creative
class.
If artists get federal funds to dig and refill ditches, half of
them will label their ditch-digging projects as performance art
('the cycle of eternal recurrence as illustrated by the blah blah')
and the other half will do NPR interviews about rediscovering the
Deep Meaningfulness of Manual Labor.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 10:30AM|#
I'd like to say that the vast majority of the opinions expressed about art in this thread are 100% spot-on. Tony, you're right, most artists have relied on patronage to survive, but I disagree with you on this: there is nothing wrong with working menial labor until one's art is good enough to sell in greater quantities. Yes, I realize the taxpayers are subsidizing me right now, but it's not for art, and believe me, this desert sucks so bad I don't even feel bad about it.
|8.10.09 @ 10:32AM|#
I have a minion, er, student employee that is majoring in art photography for the purpose of getting art school girls naked and photographing them. I have never been more proud of an employee, and more honored to be someone's push-over boss, than the day he told me that while I was looking at his portfolio. Every time the little skinny bastard is late for work, I think of that and I just cannot care.
|8.10.09 @ 10:32AM|#
"Big props for the Karen Finley ref, SF."
You got a lesbian feminist sister, Suge? Because I do and you seem
to reference a lot of the same things she does.
|8.10.09 @ 10:32AM|#
"But I'm just and old fashioned kind of guy
Stalinist who believes that pride in one's culture, and public
support of advancing it, is a good thing."
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:33AM|#
My wife and i are both artists; she draws and paints, i write and sculpt with recycled materials, we both dabble in music. Neither of us does it for a living, though we hope to, someday. Neither of us gets money from Uncle Sugar, either. We're not parasites.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 10:34AM|#
I think Tony's redneck boyfriend came home drunk last night and went upside his head just a little too hard.
Heh heh, I remember the off-hand comment this is based on. Quite
a memory, Solanum. Don't you guys think you're being a little mean
to Tony, though?
BTW, for real insight into the artistic subculture, may I also
recommend the Daniel Clowes?
BTW, that socialist realist is awesome. Almost makes one forget
what a turd Chairman Mao was. OK, doesn't really make you
forget.
|8.10.09 @ 10:35AM|#
i write and sculpt with recycled materials
And I thought it was raccoons that knocked over my garbage cans!
I'm going to beat you with a broom if I catch you out back, art
boy.
Warty|8.10.09 @ 10:35AM|#
Shut the fuck up, Tony. Also, this:
SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate
the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million
of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR
Boo!
SPEAKER
Bill defeated.
|8.10.09 @ 10:39AM|#
Yes, I realize the taxpayers are subsidizing me right now,
but it's not for art, and believe me, this desert sucks so bad I
don't even feel bad about it.
I'm unaware of your situation. Was that a typo for dessert, or are
you in the desert?
|8.10.09 @ 10:39AM|#
You got a lesbian feminist sister, Suge?
No, I am an only child. I was supposed to have 3 siblings, but I
ate them in the womb and destroyed their souls. And then I grabbed
the uterus on the way out and brought it with me so my mother
couldn't have any more.
As for feminisms, I work on a college campus. I'm soaking it
in.
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 10:40AM|#
'Art and artists have always required patronage, and the value
of art hasn't traditionally been considered just how much you can
sell it for.'
Yes, and patrons usually have certain specifications as to what
kind of art they wanted.
The Renaissance princes, the up-and-coming merchants, and others
who gave commissions to great artwork of the past, didn't say -
'here's a bag of gold - go and make yourself some art.' No, they
would be much more likely to say, 'I want a statue of myself,' or
'I want a painting of my wife/mistress dressed (or undressed) as
Venus,' or 'I want some cool sculptures for my family tomb.' If the
artist had gone out and done a sculpture of their patron with a
chamberpot on his head, as a symbol of his patron's oppressiveness
and philistinism, then the artist might have found himself in a
spot of trouble. He certainly wouldn't have gotten another contract
from that patron, unless the patron was insane (or incorrigibly
progressive).
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:41AM|#
Actually, Sweet'n'Low, i recycle the raccoons themselves. I've already got a couple galleries interested in my "Centiraccoonipede" installation.
|8.10.09 @ 10:41AM|#
"BTW, for real insight into the artistic subculture, may I also
recommend the Daniel Clowes?"
I would recommend the John Waters film "Pecker".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126604/
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:42AM|#
How has this not been posted yet?
It was in the back of everyone's mind, Warty.
|8.10.09 @ 10:44AM|#
I wonder how many NEA fans would applaud if they found out the Obama/Joker poster was a product of the government ArtDole.
|8.10.09 @ 10:46AM|#
If government got out of art, what would happen? Does anyone
really think we'd lose anything? Subsidizing art without regard to
quality means that we get crappy art.
All of my comments are subsidized by the NEA.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:46AM|#
I wonder how many NEA fans would applaud if they found out
the Obama/Joker poster was a product of the government
ArtDole.
All of them. Suddenly, we would be inundated with articles about
how visionary and daring the artist was, and how they pulled the
wool over everybody's (read: conservatives') eyes. Philip Kennicott
would be quietly forced to commit seppukku.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Xeones, you wear black lipstick under your moustache, don't
you?
Only on alternate weekends, Warty.
|8.10.09 @ 10:48AM|#
Many conservatives are New Dealers in drag
Larry? Larry Craig? Is that you?
Why does everyone think I'm gay? Why, Why, WHY?!
[stamps foot, throws hands in air, flounces off]
The Renaissance princes, the up-and-coming merchants, and
others who gave commissions to great artwork of the past, didn't
say - 'here's a bag of gold - go and make yourself some
art.'
Exhibit A: Rembrandt's The Night Watch was commissioned by
an Amsterdam militia. You wanted to be in the picture, you ponied
up. You wanted to be in the front row, you ponied up big.
Doesn't seem to have inhibited Rembrandt's awesomeness much.
|8.10.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Mad Max,
You're right. I've always been intrigued by how the best art seems
to come out of highly constrained environments, as if having
boundaries to push against is necessary. Could a Bach or a
Michelangelo have possibly been better if they were given total
control over their subject matter rather than serving the interests
of the church? Modern-day artists who just go out and "do art"
produce so much unappealing crap one wonders if the best
environment for art is one of freedom.
|8.10.09 @ 10:50AM|#
Philip Kennicott would be quietly forced to commit
seppukku.
Everybody wins!
As for myself, I am checking my mailbox every day; as soon as the
check from the NEA arrives, I shall devour a box of watercolors,
and piss a masterpiece.
mark|8.10.09 @ 10:52AM|#
@ Tony
There are plenty of great artists out there - Takashi Murakami,
Phil Hale, John Currin, Kent Williams - making a good living
without NEA subsidies or any institutional recognition. It's just
that they are willing to paint a nice portrait, some naked chicks,
or merchandise their art.
|8.10.09 @ 10:58AM|#
mark,
Yeah, and going with the theme of constraint, maybe public funding
of art should be limited to art that serves a public purpose. Civic
beautification, architecture, maybe public stage productions and
the like. I don't have a problem with a small amount of tax money
being spent on the arts. Maybe we could cancel a contract for one
military aircraft and fund art for a few centuries. But I believe
bombing people to be a far more frivolous use of public money than
art.
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 10:59AM|#
An artist can only be a true artist, if he is lost, lonely,
depressed, mentally ill, starving, homeless, jilted, etc. By
funding the arts, government is only hurting it.
But I wonder if any contemporary artists like Peter Max or Andy
Warhol ever received any funding from NEA. I know Peter Max has
been commissioned on several occasions by several Presidents for
various projects. From a Libertarian viewpoint, how is
commissioning an artist different from funding NEA?
I don't know of any government, in the history of civilization,
that didn't fund the arts in one form or another. Particularly
through the Enlightenment Period.
T|8.10.09 @ 10:59AM|#
I've always been intrigued by how the best art seems to come
out of highly constrained environments, as if having boundaries to
push against is necessary.
Boundary conditions determine everything. Generally speaking,
without some constraint to work within, artists tend to produce
bloated self-indulgent crap. This is arguably more true with
literature and music, but still applies elsewhere. Time is arguably
the most important constraint of all.
|8.10.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Little known fact: Most military funding comes from the NEA under the heading, "Performance Art."
Warty|8.10.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Maybe we could cancel a contract for one military aircraft
and fund art for a few centuries. But I believe bombing people to
be a far more frivolous use of public money than art.
You're arguing with different people than you think you're arguing
with again.
Karl Rove|8.10.09 @ 11:00AM|#
I wonder how many NEA fans would applaud if they found out
the Obama/Joker poster was a product of the government
ArtDole.
[Hee-hee!]
That Old Canard |8.10.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Maybe we could cancel a contract for one military aircraft and fund art for a few centuries
"It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they
need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a
bomber."
Tomcat1066|8.10.09 @ 11:03AM|#
Maybe we could cancel a contract for one military aircraft
and fund art for a few centuries. But I believe bombing people to
be a far more frivolous use of public money than art.
I don't disagree. But a better use of the money would be to let it
say in the people's pockets so they can do with it what they will
;)
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 11:08AM|#
"It will be a great day when our schools get all the money
they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a
bomber."
I think it will be a great day when "our" schools AND the Air Force
are having to hold all kinds of bake sales. And then i will also
hold a bake sale because i like brownies. And since this is a
libertarian fantasy, certain special ingredients will be
allowed.
MNG|8.10.09 @ 11:11AM|#
"An artist can only be a true artist, if he is lost, lonely,
depressed, mentally ill, starving, homeless, jilted, etc. By
funding the arts, government is only hurting it."
I think that's bullshit. As Charles Bukowski, who should have known
said, a good artist writes better after a good steak than he does
when he's wondering where his next meal is coming from...I mean,
what do you do better when starving and sleeping in
alleyways?
Now, that doesn't mean the people should be taxed and the money
given to a government approved art project, but I hate the whole
"you're doing an artist a favor when you starve him and hurting him
when you feed him or pay him" bullshit.
|8.10.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Rich|8.10.09 @ 11:13AM|#
An artist can only be a true artist, if he is lost, lonely,
depressed, mentally ill, starving, homeless, jilted, etc. By
funding the arts, government is only hurting it.
Based on how the gov't obtains its funds, care to rethink your
conclusion?
|8.10.09 @ 11:13AM|#
You're arguing with different people than you think you're arguing with again.
So where are all the Reason articles bitching about military
spending? You can find those pretty much on a weekly basis at, say,
the Nation. Here the bitching is usually confined to culture war
crap like this.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 11:14AM|#
MNG has a point. I, for one, love a good steak before sitting
down to create something.
I write better when horribly depressed, though.
Also, Tony's 11:12am comment is the most enlightening, relevant
thing he has yet posted.
MNG|8.10.09 @ 11:16AM|#
We could stand to see more stuff on how military spending sucks.
It is a huge part of government, and invovles some pretty wicked
transfer of wealth programs under the cover of fighting the
Russians...
Funny in a way, as a liberal I've always been conflicted because on
the one hand I despise militarism, but on the other I realize that
in many ways military/defense spending is one of the biggest public
jobs programs there is...I'm not being funny there either.
MNG|8.10.09 @ 11:17AM|#
When I'm hungry I think more about "where can I get some fucking food" than I do "what line would best finish this sonnet?"
Matt|8.10.09 @ 11:17AM|#
I never understood public art grants for the same reason I never
understood why kids move to Brooklyn on their parents dime to be
"writers" full time (I use scare quotes since being a writer in
Brooklyn means doing a lot of drugs and sitting in a Starbucks with
a MacBook Pro).
If you don't work and don't go out and do something the art you
produce will have no character. So much of creative writing is
reflective of what you experience in life, and if all you
experience in life is an expensive loft subsidized by your parents
and frappuchinos then...your art is going to suck.
Warty|8.10.09 @ 11:18AM|#
So where are all the Reason articles bitching about military
spending?
Let me
google that for you. Dumbass.
Xeones|8.10.09 @ 11:19AM|#
I've always been conflicted because on the one hand I
despise militarism, but on the other I realize that in many ways
military/defense spending is one of the biggest public jobs
programs there is
Step into the light, MNG. Embrace your inner libertarian, and damn
both militarism AND "job programs." Search your soul. You know
you want to.
|8.10.09 @ 11:20AM|#
MNG,
Yeah that's a sad commentary on how the human brain works. In
reality, massive public funding for stuff that actually represents
added value is better than massive public spending on stuff whose
only purpose is to destroy and/or be destroyed. But that falls
under the enumerated powers/assuages our paranoia, so it's
okay.
|8.10.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I think that the U.S.--even now--is wealthy enough to produce plenty of works of fine art without a dime of federal money.
Fluffy|8.10.09 @ 11:24AM|#
Maybe we could cancel a contract for one military aircraft
and fund art for a few centuries.
Fine. Once again, do you still think that's a good idea if I
personally give out all the grants?
|8.10.09 @ 11:26AM|#
If you don't work and don't go out and do something the art
you produce will have no character. So much of creative writing is
reflective of what you experience in life, and if all you
experience in life is an expensive loft subsidized by your parents
and frappuchinos then...your art is going to suck.
Are you trying to tell me Brett Easton Ellis
SUCKS?
Wicks Cherrycoke|8.10.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Hey Tony.
D'ya think the NEA will give a grant to the guy who is doing the
Obama Socialism posters?
Nah, probably not.
|8.10.09 @ 11:31AM|#
"From a Libertarian viewpoint, how is commissioning an artist
different from funding NEA?"
When I've commissioned community art, the NEA didn't get to wet
it's beak. 100% of the money went to the artist and the artist had
100% control.
|8.10.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Matt, I think your question:
I never understood public art grants for the same reason I
never understood why kids move to Brooklyn on their parents dime to
be "writers" full time
Answers itself:
being a writer in Brooklyn means doing a lot of drugs and
sitting in a Starbucks with a MacBook Pro
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 11:33AM|#
I'm skeptical of federal arts funding, except for such things as
doing a cool mural in the Post Office Building or paying the Marine
Band.
I'm *also* skeptical of the following:
'An artist can only be a true artist, if he is lost, lonely,
depressed, mentally ill, starving, homeless, jilted, etc. By
funding the arts, government is only hurting it.'
Shakespeare wasn't starving. He was a prominent actor who provoked
the jealously of other actors. If certain revisionist theories are
true, Shakeapeare was even more comfortable because he was actually
a prominent nobleman (or noblewoman, or whatever).
Bach had a comfortable living as a church composer.
Vivaldi was a priest (with a special exemption from performing
priestly duties), and an instructor at a girls' school, ending up
as responsible for all music instruction(see the upcoming
biopic).
mark|8.10.09 @ 11:34AM|#
@ Tony
There is no need for an NEA. Artists can and are gainfully employed
as commercial illustrators, fashion photographers, animators,
cartoonists, graphic designers, etc. Anyone looking for an NEA
grant is too stupid, lazy, or talentless, to get a real job, and
just wants to be a "rock star" on the public dime.
|8.10.09 @ 11:35AM|#
R C Dean,
I have a neologism for you:
Deliberbating. It's what justices do when they retreat to their
chambers to apply the Miller test to pornography.
I bet NEA judges spend a lot of time deliberbating.
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 11:36AM|#
OK Since nobody posted it (unless I missed it) here it
is.
But I think this was commissioned by CBS News.
Matt|8.10.09 @ 11:39AM|#
RC,
Of course, but it doesn't mean that the trustifarians are actually
producing anything good. Just like we can't expect NEA-subsidized
art to be any good. If all you know is being handed money that's
all your art can be about.
At the end of the day, you're not subsidizing art, you're
subsidizing a lifestyle (at least in the case of NYC artists).
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 11:39AM|#
'An artist can only be a true artist, if he is lost, lonely,
depressed, mentally ill, starving, homeless, jilted, etc. By
funding the arts, government is only hurting it.'
It was a joke!!!
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Actually, I did hear a "debate" on NPR about whether or not
artists should be prescribed anti-depression meds. Very
interesting.
NO PROZAC FOR THE ARTIST!
Typical Artist|8.10.09 @ 11:44AM|#
Anyone looking for an NEA grant is too stupid, lazy, or
talentless, to get a real job ...
Ever aaplied for a grant? It is hard work; and if you get one you
have to really produce.
|8.10.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I think Typical Artist is right--artists shouldn't have to waste their time on non-artistic work like grant applications. Therefore, the NEA should also fund professional grant writers for each artist.
BakedPenguin|8.10.09 @ 11:50AM|#
There are plenty of great artists out there
Personally, I like Jeff
League.
Back when I wasn't poor I bought a couple photos / paintings.
|8.10.09 @ 11:51AM|#
The hard life is balancing act for writers (the type of artist
I'm an comfortable commenting on). On the one hand, if all you know
is being a writer, then you end up writing about writing and few
people do that well without a contrast. But a truly hard life has a
tendency to create boring writing as well because they fixate on
"woe is me."
For example, we had a a guy in my autobiography fiction course that
was a wonderful, lyrical writer. He knew how to write a story with
a beginning, a middle, and an end (which you know is quite a feat
if you've ever been around student writers) and write dialogue that
humans would actually say. But everyone of his stories were about
being raped by his grandfather. He told it in an amazing array of
ways, but that was the story he told every time.
But the other extreme produces boring art. Start paying attention
to how many young writer's first (or, more significantly, second)
books are about being in a writing class. The MFA hasn't ruined
writing, but it's kicked in the balls more times than I can
count.
|8.10.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Therefore, the NEA should also fund professional grant
writers for each artist.
Too elitist, and obviously unfair. All NEA grant apps should
consist merely of the words: "Will art for food."
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 11:55AM|#
But a truly hard life has a tendency to create boring
writing as well because they fixate on "woe is me."
This was the driving force in Delta Blues, and Blues in general.
Without it, where would contemporary music be today?
|8.10.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Rocco Landesman is the nephew of Fran Landesman, who wrote two of the great songs-"Spring Can Really Hang You Up the Most" and "The Ballad of the Sad Young Men".
JB|8.10.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Fuck Rocco Landesman in the ass with a telephone poll. I don't care if he's just a retard or a gay retard.
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 12:06PM|#
'"But a truly hard life has a tendency to create boring writing
as well because they fixate on 'woe is me.'"
'This was the driving force in Delta Blues, and Blues in general.
Without it, where would contemporary music be today?'
Went to the mailbox
Picked up my NEA check
I said, I went to the mailbox
Picked up my NEA check
Why should I be a starving artist
Just 'cause all my art is such dreck?
Citizen Nothing|8.10.09 @ 12:07PM|#
oldguy, Roberta Flack did a kick-ass, haunting cover of Sad Young Men on her First Take album.
Fluffy|8.10.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Uh-oh, I sense that this thread is about to turn into a "Make an
Obscure Musical Reference" contest.
Which is sure to be followed by the always popular "I drink cooler
beer than you do" contest.
|8.10.09 @ 12:14PM|#
This was the driving force in Delta Blues, and Blues in
general. Without it, where would contemporary music be
today?
Well, since I was talking about contemporary fiction, we'd be
without a whole bunch of "daddy/mommy/unky/aunty/brother/sister
raped me" memoirs and therefore a damn sight better off than right
now. The fucking Oprah book club would have collapsed years
ago.
|8.10.09 @ 12:15PM|#
I can't afford to drink really cool, obscure beer, because those
rat bastards at the RNC won't let the NEA subsidize my art.
*sobs*
|8.10.09 @ 12:19PM|#
"Uh-oh, I sense that this thread is about to turn into a "Make
an Obscure Musical Reference" contest."
Captain Beefheart for the win!
T|8.10.09 @ 12:20PM|#
Uh-oh, I sense that this thread is about to turn into a
"Make an Obscure Musical Reference" contest.
I hate those, but mainly because I don't listen to obscure music. I
always lose the obscurity challenges unless I go with the things I
own that I don't actually listen to, like Chainsaw Kittens or The
Big F.
|8.10.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Did you know that approximately 38% musical questions in the 60s version of Trivial Pursuit can be answered correctly with "Country Joe and the Fish."
|8.10.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Piss Christ--all the offensiveness with a third fewer calories than regular beer!
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 12:34PM|#
The fucking Oprah book club would have collapsed years
ago.
What do you have against the Oprah Book Club?
(Rhetorical)
Besides, the best way for an artist to develop his talent, in any
form, is extremely subjective. And widely varies from person to
person. And I, being a fairly competent musician, but not an
"artist", would never suggest one over the other.
The Idiot List|8.10.09 @ 12:38PM|#
The new chairman, Rocco Landesman said he already has a new
slogan for his agency: "Art Works." It's "something muscular that
says, 'We matter.'
You are an idiot.
Pendulum | August 10, 2009, 9:20am | #
Well, he's quite perceptive. There is an "arts are for pansies"
spirit that seems to underlie much of the conservative criticism of
NEA funding.
Arts funding is a trifle compared to Medicare (or virtually any
government program of note), but it receives a massively
disproportionate share of conservative invective.
You are an idiot.
Warren | August 10, 2009, 9:35am | #
Small potatoes. The government is hemorrhaging from three arteries
and your worried about the NEA picking the scab off the scraped
knee? Sure go ahead, have mommy kiss it and put a band-aid on
it.
You are an idiot.
Tony | August 10, 2009, 9:45am | #
Art and artists have always required patronage, and the value of
art hasn't traditionally been considered just how much you can sell
it for.
Scary fucking stupid. An historical illiterate as well.
Next!
mark|8.10.09 @ 12:39PM|#
"Thomas Kinkade seems to have done pretty well without NEA
support."
I could spend hours parsing that statement. Was it made to piss off
Tony? Is it a sarcastic commentary on what the author believes to
be the ideal libertarian artist?
Of one thing I am certain: I'll need an NEA grant to do it.
alan|8.10.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Vivaldi was a priest (with a special exemption from
performing priestly duties), and an instructor at a girls' school,
ending up as responsible for all music instruction(see the upcoming
biopic).
I have an aunt who was a truck driving lesbian back in the 70's and
80's who later went on to study art, and degreed up to a masters.
She is now a nun and an art restorationist working for the Vatican.
Her specialty is repair work on tapestries and mosaics.
|8.10.09 @ 12:57PM|#
Yeah offering Kincade as an example of the virtues of commercial art is a good way to turn people into authoritarian communists.
Meta4|8.10.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"I have an aunt who was a truck driving lesbian back in the 70's
and 80's who later went on to study art, and degreed up to a
masters. She is now a nun and an art restorationist working for the
Vatican. Her specialty is repair work on tapestries and
mosaics"
What kind of meat does she eat on Fridays?
Tricky Prickears |8.10.09 @ 1:06PM|#
What kind of meat does she eat on Fridays?
Catholics don't do that anymore!
alan|8.10.09 @ 1:08PM|#
One of the irritating points that underlines the argument but I have not seen brought up is how the 'progressives' are oblivious to the zero sum aspect of public funding of the arts. If you buy into your premises, you have to recognize that every dollar that goes into funding someone's art oriented lifestyle is one coming out of the mouths of a starving baby, again, your principles, not mine. When you have fed and clothed everyone and got them a living wage in order to be consistent with your principles perhaps you can indulge in a little art oriented life style funding on the side. If you were philosophically consistent, you would be the first to be railing against art funding, not the first in line asking for handouts.
alan|8.10.09 @ 1:12PM|#
What kind of meat does she eat on Fridays?
Catholics don't do that anymore!
Shit, growing up, Friday was always fish night, and we are all
about as fallen as it gets. Though hippie mum has gotten religious
in her old age, and she was never Catholic, only dad's side of the
family.
mark|8.10.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Thomas Kinkade is a strawman. Phil Hale has done art for Halo Box Covers, Takashi Murakami has partnered with Louis Vuitton, and Kent Williams has done comic book covers. Our new, allegedly "sophisticated" liberal overlords wouldn't accuse those guys of being sentimental hacks if they knew who they were.
|8.10.09 @ 1:18PM|#
" If you were philosophically consistent, you would be the first
to be railing against art funding, not the first in line asking for
handouts."
But what if the funding goes to this?:
http://www.kultureklub.org/home.html
|8.10.09 @ 1:23PM|#
I have an aunt who was a truck driving lesbian back in the
70's and 80's who later went on to study art, and degreed up to a
masters. She is now a nun and an art restorationist working for the
Vatican. Her specialty is repair work on tapestries and
mosaics.
If I were to see that as the plot of a book or movie, I would just
roll my eyes. Truth is stranger, etc.
|8.10.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Yeah offering Kincade as an example of the virtues of
commercial art is a good way to turn people into authoritarian
communists.
I think I know who PL's givig all of his NEA funding to now.
(Fancy) people look down on commerical/replicable pictures as
non-art, but hey, just because the majority of America is happy
enough with a generic duck painting on their wall doesn't mean they
need to have "good" art forced down their throats.
alan|8.10.09 @ 1:34PM|#
http://www.kultureklub.org/home.htm
The link didn't work for me when I copied it to the http window of
my browser. Two 'K's in the web page name where there are usually
'C's. This one is bound to be juicy when it turns back up.
|8.10.09 @ 1:37PM|#
you have to recognize that every dollar that goes into
funding someone's art oriented lifestyle is one coming out of the
mouths of a starving baby
Don't be ridiculous; that's what printing presses are for.
|8.10.09 @ 1:39PM|#
from Wikipedia, because some of it is hilarious
The Los Angeles Times has reported that some of Kinkade's
former colleagues, employees, and even collectors of his work say
that he has a long history of cursing and heckling other artists
and performers. The Times further reported that he openly groped a
woman's breasts at a South Bend, Indiana sales event, and mentioned
his proclivity for ritual territory marking through urination, once
relieving himself on a Winnie the Pooh figure at a Disney site
while saying "This one's for you, Walt."[21][22] Kinkade has denied
some of the allegations, and accepted and apologized for
others.[22]
In 2006 John Dandois, Media Arts Group executive, recounted a story
that on one occasion ("about six years ago") Kinkade became drunk
at a Siegfried and Roy magic show in Las Vegas and began shouting
"Codpiece! Codpiece!" at the performers. Eventually he was calmed
by his mother.[21] Dandois also said of Kinkade, "Thom would be
fine, he would be drinking, and then all of a sudden, you couldn't
tell where the boundary was, and then he became very incoherent,
and he would start cussing and doing a lot of weird
stuff."[21]
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 1:47PM|#
alan,
Good for your aunt!
The Vatican (through its sponsorship of folks like alan's aunt) has
supported the creation of more great art than 100 NEA grantees. And
they never have to immerse crucifixes in urine, either.
alan|8.10.09 @ 1:50PM|#
(Fancy) people look down on commerical/replicable pictures
as non-art, but hey, just because the majority of America is happy
enough with a generic duck painting on their wall doesn't mean they
need to have "good" art forced down their throats.
Some of my favorite artwork is done by graphic artist who build
custom texture sets for video games. Especially now, when you have
high def rez, normal directional mapping, multilayer sampling for
shader effects, it takes a shit load more talent and
professionalism to accomplish than what you see at an NEA sponsored
slam poetry event.
alan|8.10.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Don't be ridiculous; that's what printing presses are
for.
That made my day!
Bada Bing|8.10.09 @ 1:56PM|#
"And they never have to immerse crucifixes in urine,
either."
Nope, not the Vatican, too busy raping young boys for that
nonsense!
|8.10.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Liberals think that everything good should be funded by the government. And that it's inherently impossible for any good thing to exist by means of the profit motive.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 1:59PM|#
The Vatican (through its sponsorship of folks like alan's aunt) has supported the creation of more great art than 100 NEA grantees.
Setting the bar kind of low, eh Max? ;)
But a truly hard life has a tendency to create boring writing as well because they fixate on "woe is me."
Heh heh, ever hear the song "Woe" by Say Anything? Awesome.
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Bada Bing Crosby,
Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody forgets that.
And I see you've failed to assimilate the wisdom of author and
Libertarian Party figute Mary Ruwart, who said: 'Children who
willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that
decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally.'
The Angry Optimist|8.10.09 @ 2:09PM|#
A conservative Catholic hates the sacrilegious NEA? Someone call
the presses.
Anyway, the NEA should not exist. There's your libertarianism,
kids.
Vatican Public Service Ad|8.10.09 @ 2:13PM|#
There's been a lot of bad press about the Catholic Church lately. I'm sure you've heard stories about how our Priests rape young boys. But what you haven't heard is that the vast majority of the sex our Priests have with young boys is consensual, not forced. Sure changes things doesn't it? Oh, and don't forget, we don't put crucifix's in urine either. That's the Catholic Church, engaging in dogmatism, collectivism and (consensual) boy sex at a location near you.
|8.10.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Thomas Kinkade is a strawman. Phil Hale has done art for
Halo Box Covers, Takashi Murakami has partnered with Louis Vuitton,
and Kent Williams has done comic book covers. Our new, allegedly
"sophisticated" liberal overlords wouldn't accuse those guys of
being sentimental hacks if they knew who they were.
Alphonse Mucha's best work was his commercial stuff - wine bottles
and theater posters. His "serious" work - oil paintings about the
Slavic people is completely boring.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 2:22PM|#
The best way to not get called a child rapist? Don't rape children.
What's the second best way?
|8.10.09 @ 2:22PM|#
"The Vatican (through its sponsorship of folks like alan's aunt)
has supported the creation of more great art than 100 NEA grantees.
And they never have to immerse crucifixes in urine, either."
Or pay taxes.
|8.10.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Funny in a way, as a liberal I've always been conflicted
because on the one hand I despise militarism, but on the other I
realize that in many ways military/defense spending is one of the
biggest public jobs programs there is...I'm not being funny there
either.
This explains a lot.
You're happy as long as people get paid, whether they are producing
anything of value or not.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Hmm...despite my moral qualms, I think I'd take Landesman's sinecure job in a heartbeat.
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Libertarian Public Service Ad:
There's been a lot of bad press about libertarians lately. I'm sure
you've heard stories about how libertarians support the right of
women to 'evict' unborn children (aka 'trespassers) from their
wombs by killing them. And how they support the 'right' of children
to 'consent' to sex. And it's true that many of us support these
bizarre ideas.
So you might ask: How do we have the moral standing to criticize
the worldly priests and prelates of the Catholic Church who were
involved in the sex scandals that were in the media some years ago?
Why do we focus on the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, and not
on sexual
abuse by teachers in government schools? Is it because we love
government schools? No, indeed! It's because we don't really see
any problem in consensual sex between adults and children. It's
easy to target the Catholic Church because of the hypocrisy of the
worldly priests and prelates involved in the sex scandals, because
they were violating standards which they themselves professed to
believe in.
As sophisticated libertarians, however, we are cool with folks like
Mary Ruwart who, in a non-hypocritical way, argue for the rights of
children to enjoy the pleasures of sex, even at the hands of
adults.
Urkobold™|8.10.09 @ 2:46PM|#
IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE SO MANY OF THE TEACHERS HAVE BEEN YOUNG, HOT WOMEN LATELY. IF PRIESTS WERE YOUNG, HOT WOMEN (LIKE SOME NUNS) MOLESTING YOUNGER MEN, THE CHURCH WOULD DO MUCH BETTER HEREABOUTS.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Whoa, whoa, Mad Max! I'm Pro-Life...and I disagree with Ruwart. Also, I was never molested.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 2:50PM|#
I think the church should allow nuns and priests to get married, though. I've found that after about a year-and-a-half without sex, certain...self-abusive habits take frightful hold.
Catholic Church PSA|8.10.09 @ 2:53PM|#
The Catholic Church: Proudly Celebrating Two Straight Centuries of Being Inquisition Free.
|8.10.09 @ 2:56PM|#
I should also point out that I'm not The Pope.
I can't believe that you have lied to me for this long.
|8.10.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Man, I'd be a great Pope. Where do you apply for the position? I'm married with kids--is that a big issue?
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 3:06PM|#
I can't believe that you have lied to me for this long.
:::takes off triregnum, breaks down into tears:::
Tomcat1066|8.10.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Man, I'd be a great Pope. Where do you apply for the
position? I'm married with kids--is that a big issue?
Not if you change your last name to Borgia.
Ratdog|8.10.09 @ 3:17PM|#
It's likely had the NEA never existed we would still have been able to enjoy dogs playing poker, the puppies and kittens with huge eyes, all painted on black velvet, as well many other valuable works of art, such as the evil klowns, that buyers are always interested in purchasing. Additionally, there's plenty of money out there people are ready to spend on good art in the form of tattoos and air brush works on vans, cars, trucks, you name it. A few years ago I tracked down and paid an Amerindian artist two grand to paint flaming ape skulls on my motorcycle gas tank halves. Even after finding him I had to talk the artist into it, the guy is that good. There's no need for any artist that's worth a damn to freeload on the taxpayer. If they can't make it selling their work, and feel they're above the kinds of work mentioned above, tough, go get a job like the rest of us, they probably suck anyways.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 3:27PM|#
I had to wiki the Borgias...Wow, those wacky Italians!
+1, Pro Lib
There should be a movie..."Borgia: The Shame of a Vatican"
|8.10.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Considering that celibacy of priests was implemented just to keep them from having kids who would have to get divided shares of the Church's estate upon the priests' deaths, like all governments they had to overreact and ban sex when they could have just said, "you can have wives and kids but we're not splitting everything with them just because you croak." I would be a priest if they removed the celibacy rule. I mean it's not like they all believe what they preach anyway. I think a little atheism in the Catholic Church would be refreshing.
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 3:54PM|#
'I think the church should allow nuns and priests to get
married, though. I've found that after about a year-and-a-half
without sex, certain...self-abusive habits take frightful
hold.'
I don't think the sex scandals referenced by posters above have to
do with *self* abuse. Sadly, for those who have a problem with
kids, marriage is not a cure, as many child-abuse cases
illustrate.
As for self-abuse,
Saint Paul actually recommends marriage for those who would
otherwise be sitting around with a Playboy in one hand and
themselves in the other.
'I would be a priest if they removed the celibacy rule.'
You could be a priest in one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.
They ordain married men. My priest in New York was married.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 4:02PM|#
I don't think the sex scandals referenced by posters above have to do with *self* abuse
Well, yeah, but if you've seen Jarhead, you'll probably know what I'm talking about.
Sadly, for those who have a problem with kids, marriage is not a cure, as many child-abuse cases illustrate.
True.
|8.10.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Hazel Meade | August 10, 2009, 1:58pm | #
Liberals think that everything good should be funded by the government. And that it's inherently impossible for any good thing to exist by means of the profit motive.
Liberals take the marketplace for what it is, which is an
imperfect, often chaotic system prone to bubbles and crashes and
left unregulated tends toward monopoly and plutocracy. And that in
truly free societies people should be free to regulate the force of
nature that is the market in order to mitigate its excesses. But
nice try.
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 4:08PM|#
people should be free to regulate the force of nature that is the market government in order to mitigate its excesses.
Mad Max|8.10.09 @ 4:13PM|#
'Whoa, whoa, Mad Max! I'm Pro-Life...and I disagree with Ruwart.
Also, I was never molested.'
I'm pro-life, and I disagree with the worldly prelates and priests
in the scandals. I wasn't molested either. Not by other people,
anyway.
|8.10.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
Do you really think that's an either/or proposition? Government is
regulated, more strongly than any private entity. Though I disagree
that government is a force of nature. Its a human construct meant
to provide collective protection from nature.
|8.10.09 @ 4:20PM|#
But what is the "regulation" of government if we keep weakening the restraints of the Constitution?
Art-P.O.G.|8.10.09 @ 4:23PM|#
No, Tony, I don't think it's either/or, I was just pointing out that the excesses of the government worry me more than the excesses of big business (and where there's synergy, look out!).
Sean W. Malone|8.10.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Man... Ya know what... I am an artist (in music) and
have a perfectly comfortable gig using the technical aspects of my
skills working as a music editor & mixing engineer...
I've never taken or applied for an NEA grant. And yet I still have
time to perform and write and do other creative things that aren't
a big part of my job.
But the reality here is, being an artist of any kind is a
remarkably hard thing to do successfully. It takes patience, time,
long-term faith in your abilities and dogged pursuit of more &
better opportunities. Most people aren't willing to commit that
effort. Hell - I'm not even willing to commit that effort
(hence why I'm here at a desk doing technical work and getting a
decent paycheck instead of eating Ramen and living out of a VW
Bus)!
NEA grants are definitely wayyy way down the list of my things to
chop from the government expenditures (I'd personally start by
eliminating corporate subsidies of all kinds and every single
military base not on United States' soil), but I don't think
they're doing anybody any favors...
Effete pseudo-artists who could never produce a work of lasting
value (which is necessarily defined by overwhelming popular support
over a prolonged period of time) get to play with other people's
money and produce nothing anybody likes. Most of these guys also
*do* have jobs, btw - as professors.
But I think the thing with NEA funding is that it's so goddamn
insulting. I work relatively hard to produce stuff that I think has
value and which pleases my potential customers. I care
about what my audience thinks of my work, because ultimately I want
them to support me. Like all subsidies, NEA grants (to paraphrase
Walter Williams) basically look at everyone's aggregate opinion
about what is "good" or "bad" art - i.e. what people want to see
and what they value - and say: "You're all wrong!"
But it's not even enough for them to say, "You're wrong" - no...
They also get to pick the pockets of those same people to pay for
works of art that they wouldn't support otherwise.
It's one thing to disagree with someone's opinion about
aesthetics... But nobody but government gets to take your money to
support something you don't like. That's pretty fucked up.
|8.10.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Liberals take the marketplace for what it is, which is an
imperfect, often chaotic system prone to bubbles and crashes and
left unregulated tends toward monopoly and plutocracy.
If, by "left unregulated" you mean "colludes with government to
limit competition"...
Government is regulated, more strongly than any private
entity.
Bullshit, through and through.
Sean W. Malone|8.10.09 @ 5:09PM|#
"Government is regulated, more strongly than any private entity.
Bullshit, through and through."
Second!
|8.10.09 @ 5:18PM|#
My favorite painting since childhood - Chas Anderson's
Rapture
I didn't say it was good.
I now own a genuine 1 in 3,000,000 damaged print. The garage is
rockin.
|8.10.09 @ 5:28PM|#
"Though I disagree that government is a force of nature. Its a
human construct meant to provide collective protection from
nature."
And art, Tony, don't forget the art.
Sean W. Malone|8.10.09 @ 5:43PM|#
For the record, I only have one "real" painting, and it is
this:
Mel
Brown by Portland-area artist, Diane Russell
MattXIV|8.10.09 @ 7:27PM|#
I actually think NEA grants contribute a net harm to the genres they subsidize by "academizing" them. As Sean points out, most of the grants go to art profs, which is also the pool that the people who assess the grants are drawn from. Thus, we get art for art professors, by art professors. The way ideas are expressed in the art becomes jargon-like due to it's isolation in the academic world and less accessible to a potential popular audience - this process is self-reenforcing and ends in a state where few people outside of academia understand the genre, not because of any inherent complexity, but because of a lack of familiarity with the reference points used to express the ideas in it. At the same time, academia favors much more formalized approaches, so the conventions of the genre become ossified. That's not to say that the academic work blindly follows the conventions - deliberate contrast with conventions is quite common - but everything is analyzed relative to the conventions, which prevents deviations from the conventions becoming new conventions themselves. The closed loop created by the funding process is very harmful for the innovation and cultural relevance of the genres supported.
MJ|8.10.09 @ 7:41PM|#
"The free market is a bitch when you suck at what you do."
It's also a bitch when your work shows contempt for most of your
potential customer base.
MJ|8.10.09 @ 7:51PM|#
"Art and artists have always required patronage, and the value
of art hasn't traditionally been considered just how much you can
sell it for." - Tony
Even if we stipulate that artists require patronage as true, it
does not follow that the federal government should be the entity
providing that patronage. Exactly what is invalid about the value
of a work of can be determined by what someone is willing to part
with their money for it?
JB|8.10.09 @ 8:48PM|#
So millions of dead gun victims are worth the 'principle'
(though certainly not the reality) that the people can start a
revolution should it be necessary?
Tony, come talk to me when the number of US gun victims comes close
to the number killed by the state when run by Hitler and Stalin
(could add Mao and others in there, but I'm willing to have the
conversation once it reaches Hitler + Stalin). Until then, Shut The
Fuck Up, Tony.
The Libertarian Guy|8.10.09 @ 10:32PM|#
"there has to be a place for us in domestic policy."
Piss on you, trough-feeder. "The arts" can fund itself. If no one
wants your art, it isn't worth subsidizing.
|8.11.09 @ 11:21AM|#
JB,
So gun deaths are only a problem when they approach Hitler and
Stalin's death tolls? Okay then...
Or wait was that another baseless smear about how American liberals
are JUST LIKE Hitler?
|8.11.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Or wait was that another baseless smear about how American
liberals are JUST LIKE Hitler?
They're not?
Hitler outlawed school prayer in Germany.
Hitler outlawed Christian Holidays in schools.
Hitler consolidated power from the states to the German federal
government.
Hitler required police permission to register a gun.
The Nation and The New Republic supported Nazi Germany.
Like liberals, Hitler also hated Jews.
Nazis had nationalized healthcare.
Nazis banned tobacco advertising.
Nazis banned smoking in public buildings.
Nazis proclaimed passive smoking a threat.
Nazis levied high taxes on cigarette to control behavior.
Nazis opposed financial capitalism (run by the Jews at the banks,
of course).
Nazis loved "voluntary" service.
Nazis are intolerant, just like self-described "liberals".
Nazi suck ass, just like liberals.
And let's not even get into their lack of a sense of humor.
So Tony, why don't you and your boy Barack go out and murder some
Jews today? You know you want to.
The Libertarian Guy|8.11.09 @ 5:51PM|#
"another baseless smear about how American liberals are JUST
LIKE Hitler?"
How about liberals who fling baseless smears that non-liberals are
"JUST LIKE Hitler"?
I know, I've been through it on the local level, and I'm not even a
Republican. Apparently, just attending one Tea Party is enough to
convince liberals you're some kind of mindless minion of the GOP...
even if you aren't. Just like any criticism of Obama = de facto
Klan membership material... even it it isn't.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245