#Trust Fund
7 messages in this thread
People may say "art nobody likes", but what they really mean is "art I don't
like". There's lots of art that some people like and other people don't. Take
"Piss Christ". That communicated something, and very clearly. It pissed most
people off, but it did so very very clearly, if you'll forgive the pun.
Mr. Zombie
If it's art somebody likes, it doesn't need a federal grant to subsidize it. If
NOBODY likes it, then there's no market for it all all. In either case, why
should taxpayers subsidize it?
-Karl
Tax dollars are needed from Joe Average (us), because like Joe Average, we
are hoplessly stupid when it comes to culture (read art). Thus since only
the elite few really appreciate art, and they can't support art by
themselves, they will help theirselves to out tax dollars to fund that
which we can't hope to appreciate because of our limited brain power.
It matters not that we do not see the works, or appreciate the works, as
being art, as we are only commoners. However the elite (read the artists,
art establishment, and various hangers on), do appreciate the "art", and
it is only right and just that the dollars of the many shall flow so that
the few can appreciate what has been created.
I realize that you probably will not agree with this viewpoint, which only
proves that you are unfit to decide upon the funding levels for the NEA,
and even less qualified to decide how the money shall be spent.
Be it insults to religions, or photos bordering on child porn, this is a
better country, and you are a better person for it. (Trust them.)
PS: It also matters not that my life long friend who never received a
buck from NEA, not that he would have turned it down, once said, "A true
artist will FIND ways to create his/her art. Art is something that has to
come out, whether or not anybody is paying. He often worked extra jobs to
afford materials, because there was a project he "had to do". Guess they
don't make them the way they used to.
– Alex…. Still Whap!'n after all these years
People need to get a better sense of perspective on some of these "issues." For
instance, the U.S. Armed Forces spend roughly $25 million more per year for
military bands than is budgeted for all of the National Endowment for the Arts.
More fascinating still, military bands spend TEN TIMES as many federal dollars
as is allocated to all arts education in American elementary and secondary
schools. And yet more intriguing: The Pentagon is the LARGEST employer of
musicians on the planet!
A lean, mean military: Be nice, Saddam, or I'll bop ya one wit' my oboe.
I like a good band as much as anyone — used to be in one, in fact. But $200
million a year for military bands — a fifth of a billion bucks — is
ridiculous. Any brouhaha over that one in Congress? Nope. Martial music…good.
Mapplethorpe photos…bad.
Sheesh. I never even had a clue about that one. I appreciate the addition to
my arsenel, Ron.
Mr. Zombie
And you felt that Newt doesn't support the arts.
Probably plenty of photographers, drawers, painters, and other artists in
the services also.
With $200 M going to just music in the armed forces, it's obvious to me
that we can cancel the NEA, and those artists can join up!
Over there… Over there…
Instead of serve your country and get money for college, it could be,
serve your country and get supplies to paint a picture.
I LIKE IT!
PS: Still don't think that we need NEA as currently strcutured.
Art has been created since time began, without using tax dollars to
support would be artists.
– Alex…. Still Whap!'n after all these years
Alex,
I see from your tag line "still Whap!'n". Whap is still working for you. I
thought that with all the changes CIS has made, Whap would be broken.
._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu
| | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360