Medicis of Menlo Park

Dana Gioia, head of the National Endowment for the Arts, shows up in Silicon Valley to ask the old, old question: Why hasn't Silicon Valley produced a juicier crop of patrons of the arts? Although he says Opera San Jose comes close to being a "world class" institution, Gioia scolds cyberbazillionaires for their lack of fabulousness:

"You've had an economic renaissance but haven't created the visual legacies of that," he said. "Florence at the height of the renaissance was smaller than Palo Alto but look what it left behind."

I suspect the NEA's recognition of videogames as an art form will take a few more decades, but in the meantime it doesn't seem totally mysterious that tech poobahs aren't getting their culture fix from 400-year-old art forms.

Jim Henley pondered why an agency as useless as the NEA has a chief as good as Gioia a while back in Reason.

Comments

[dead_elvis]

"Based on my personal experience, the biggest obstacle most artists face to earning a decent living is their own personalities (apparently, you can't be a real artist unless you are an obnoxious self-centered prick)..."

And I forgot to add that this is the market at work; the public *likes* its artists to be a) starving and b) tempermental.

And sweet Jesus in heaven, we live in frickin' 2004. Can H&R please fix the comment software/server whatever it is problem? There's no excuse for that in this day and age. I know this is Reason's sandbox and their very nice for letting us play in it, but come on.

[dead_elvis]

"Based on my personal experience, the biggest obstacle most artists face to earning a decent living is their own personalities (apparently, you can't be a real artist unless you are an obnoxious self-centered prick)..."

And I forgot to add that this is the market at work; the public *likes* its artists to be a) starving and b) tempermental.

And sweet Jesus in heaven, we live in frickin' 2004. Can H&R please fix the comment software/server whatever it is problem? There's no excuse for that in this day and age. I know this is Reason's sandbox and their very nice for letting us play in it, but come on.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Anyway, did not Bill Gates purchase all the digital rights to the Great Masters works years ago?"

And who exactly would he have purchased the rights from?

[db]

From the galleries, collections, and individuals that are in possession the original works, evidently.

[Cyrano]

Yeah, private individuals giving their money to private organizations deserve to be slammed by libertarians. Way to go, guys.

[joe]

RC,

Nice sentiment. No more dumping on the videos on BET, then?

[B.P.]

No, arts czars bitching about rich people channeling their money to outlets other than said czars' pet artistic media deserve to be slammed by libertarians.

[B.P.]

No, arts czars bitching about rich people channeling their funds to outlets other than said arts czars' pet artistic media deserve to slammed by libertarians.

And I second dead elvis: Fix the fucking comments software!

[Jon H]

I blame Burning Man.

[Patri Friedman]

Its not Silicon Valley, but looking at Microsoft cyberbillionaires, we can see that Paul Allen supports space exploration and Bill Gates supports eradicating disease in the third world. Guess these tech guys are more practical. I'll take saving the world over sculpture and paintings any day.

[John Doe]

Perhaps big art endowments are made by people who inherit the money rather than those who originally make it?

Perhaps Asians give less than Anglos?

Perhaps this is caused by taxation being higher nowadays than 100 years ago?

I agree about video games being art, and web sites also.

[OPUS]

The renaissance produced popular art of its time by the up and comming artists of the time under the pay of of the wealthy merchants of the time.

If the wealthy are unwilling to support current art why should the taxpayer?

Anyway, did not Bill Gates purchase all the digital rights to the Great Masters works years ago?

[Douglas Fletcher]

It's new money, and they haven't had it long enough to feel that old noblesse oblige, I suppose. Also, how much traditional cultural stuff is there really left to fund? When Andrew Carnegie was giving away money most towns didn't even have public libraries, whereas now every reasonably large city now has some sort of concert hall/opera house and museum complex. I wonder if underwriting an opera company gives you as much of a buzz as building the opera house and getting to put your name on it.

[speedwell]

Cripes, if you guys have been keeping your eyes open to the latest works of 3D animation, you wouldn't wonder anymore where the arts of sculpture and painting are. They've gone virtual, accessible to any artist with a good enough computer and the right software, and the patrons of the arts are now everyone from the marketing departments of giant corporations, down to the six-year-old who promises to do extra chores if Mom will rent him that video.

[MotionGraphicsGuy]

Well Said speedwell.

[db]

Patronage of the arts of old:

"So you'll be an Austrian Nobleman
Commissioning a symphony in C
Which defies all earthly descriptions
You'll be Commissioning a symphony in C

With money you squeeze from the peasants
To your nephew you can give it as a present
This magnificent symphony in C
You'll be commissioning a symphony in C
(...)"

--from Cake, "Commissioning a Symphony in C"

[R C Dean]

Maybe in widely distributed and flourishing free market for the arts, there isn't as much need for "patronage"/charity/subsidies, as any artist worth a damn can earn his keep.

Based on my personal experience, the biggest obstacle most artists face to earning a decent living is their own personalities (apparently, you can't be a real artist unless you are an obnoxious self-centered prick) and sense of entitlement (apparently, Art is far too important to be placed in the grubby marketplace, where mere proles might be allowed to breathe on it).

[Julian Sanchez]

I don't think I've strung these words together in this order before, but RC's nailed it. The notion that the wealthy should be following an arts funding model from an era before recorded music when only a tiny elite had disposable income to blow on concerts, museums, or prints strikes me as almost incomprehensibly bizarre.

Now I'm going to go put on "Comfort Eagle"

[Todd Fletcher]

RC Dean,
"Based on my personal experience, the biggest obstacle most artists face to earning a decent living is their own personalities (apparently, you can't be a real artist unless you are an obnoxious self-centered prick)..."

Looks like we have somne friends in common!

[dead_elvis]

disclaimer: I make my living playing in a symphony orchestra.

And I'm not sure why there is hostility here to private individuals giving their money to arts organizations of their choice ("The notion that the wealthy should be following an arts funding model from an era before recorded music... strikes me as almost incomprehensibly bizarre.") The only subsidy is the same tax break that any other non-profit donation incurs. If an arts organization can go out and get a bunch of rich people to donate so that ticket prices can stay reasonable, why does that offend anyone? It's all entirely a private transaction (except for noted tax break). Which means that it is indeed supporting itself in the marketplace.

"Maybe in widely distributed and flourishing free market for the arts, there isn't as much need for "patronage"/charity/subsidies, as any artist worth a damn can earn his keep."

Maybe if you include "Do you want fries with that?" as art, and if you really believe Subway when they call their workers "sandwich artists." 😉