asdrgerg on mon 16 jun 97
Well, this has been interesting. I'm especially glad Russel chimed in
with a perspective from Europe.
Since I started all of this, I wanted to make my perspective on the
matter clear -- and move on to something else.
A. Central governments have as much business anointing art as they do
anointing a religon.
Yes, Vince, I suppose I could be called a Libertarian, but I'm into
politics like I'm into organized religon. I can't see where the central
government of the US today does much of anything well. They can't even
deliver the mail in a timely and cost effective manner - and we're
supposed to trust them to care for culture?
B. Regardless of it's size, the NEA represents a transfer of wealth from
smaller towns to the large urban centers. Take the "it only costs
$0.40/person" argument. OK, let's look at Ohio. With its 8 million
inhabitants, this suggests that Ohio is "entitled" to $3.2 million in
NEA dough. Cleveland, with it's 500,000 dwellers, by this scheme, would
be allowed a $200,000 slice and Mansfield, which has 50,000 or so would
get $20,000.
It is not likely that Mansfield will get its cut, and if it did the
majority would be consumed by administrative overhead. Cleveland, with a
much more organized arts community receives a good bit more than the
$200,000 suggested. This says to the dwellers of smaller cities that
their tastes could only be insipid and that they really ought to drive 3
hours if they want to get some _real_ culture -- photos of a whip up
some guy's butt?
Moreover, the largest recipients of NEA lucor are in the HUGE metropoli
-- NYC, LA, etc, where the people are highly organized to locate
themselves in the cash stream -- and where all _real_ (?) art happens
anyway -- no? Is this in proportion to the willing butts available?
C. Yes, coporations are lousy stewards of art and of people in general.
People in a corporate system only exist to be exploited -- either by
their labor or by being induced to believe that the sneakers they bought
for $75.00 were a good deal even though they were made for $6.00 by
people who live and work in abject squalor by a company that fired their
neighbors to pull this off.
On the other hand, we have a bit of a dichotomy here. Wasn't there a
Clayart post enthusing about the Campbells Soup Tureen thing? I also
note that Philip Morris has no trouble buying art for travelling
expositions either.
D. Popular culture should not be confused for art --
Elton John is not John Coltrane; Michael (damaged goods) Jackson is not
Ornette Coleman, etc. Fill in your own visual art examples -- my bag is
music. John Coltrane never received Federal money, but worked hard
against difficult circumstances -- and succeeded. Ornette Coleman has
received a MacArthur grant (a Scholar's grant) as has Anthony Braxton.
Not NEA money.
E. The cream floats.
Frank Zappa, in my view the most important American composer to have
lived (listen to the Yellow Shark recording), NEVER accepted a dime from
the feds, ranked on them endlessly in harsh terms, and did so in a way
that sold records.
He was also correct in his assertion that television is the "tool of the
government and industry,too." This extends to Public (really corporate)
TV. The sooner televisions get chucked into the trash, the sooner the
visual arts become more nearly sought again. I'd rather keep my $0.40
and spend it on flyers to encourage the destruction of all televisions.
However, I'm not given the option.
E. The awards system at the NEA is corrupt.
I have cited examples of this here before. In short, I am aware of a
number of awards which were given to persons who were closely aquainted
with a juror and who were later told they were given the award for just
such reasons.
This is not exclusive to the NEA, but can also be demonstrated through
MFN status for China, where the corporations can fire all the Americans,
hire Chinese for $1.00/day, export their goods duty free, sell them to
Americans who now have much smaller wages (but they're "employed") while
telling them they're benefitting/ We might also look at the juicy
contracts fed to Lockheed/Boeing (who wants to move to China, too),
General Dynamics, Raytheon, the oil industry, and so on.
The problem with the NEA is that it was flagrant -- they sponsored an
exhibition of (really mediocre in my view) photographs among which was a
photo of a whip up a guy's butt -- among other of the same ilk. The
people didn't like it, some thought it was flatly perverted, and they
dispensed with it - and many strongly feel that the agency that
sponsored it ought to be done away with, too. I say extend the logic to
the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Agriculture, and so on. Profligacy and corruption may be observed in any
of these quarters at a scale which dwarfs the NEA by many orders of
magnitude. The NEA only gets beat on because it's small and the people
believe they can actually do something about it. Those who are opposed
can also make their claims -- like, "you'll live to regret it". Doubtful
as the best manifestations of creativity and cultural illumination were
never funded by the feds with confiscated funds.
David Hendley on tue 17 jun 97
WOW - all I can say is I am ASTOUNDED at the sentiments posted on
this subject.
I held my tongue (fingers?) because I didn't want to sound like
Southern, redneck, arch-consevative zealot, and now I feel like a
left-leaning middle-of-the-roader.
And this from a group of artists, potters, and teachers!
In my mind this is another sign of a massive movement of public
sentiment saying "I've had enough and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"
Almost enough to give you hope that some things might actually change.
Oh, by the way, if I'm sounding like an NEA defender, I'M NOT. My
philosophy is to stay as far away as possible from anything even remotely
connected with the government. I know from experience all it will do is
invade my privacy, waste my time, or waste my money. And I certainly don't
want the government deciding what is artistically worthwhile. Anyone who has
a burning desire to make art WILL MAKE ART. They will find a way without
being given a handout. In reality, the NEA has zero impact on my life. I
don't miss the 40cents, if that's what it is, and no one in my town, or
probably even my whole county, has ever been encouraged to make art by the NEA.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
Sandra Dwiggins on tue 17 jun 97
I'm sorry, but just because you started this doesn't mean you can finish it
and have the last word!
I've stayed out of this discussion and frankly erased most of it without
reading it---but the derogatory remarks about Robert Mapplethorpe and
the same old rant about how bad government does things is really
ridiculous...as is the fact that the best art is never supported by
governments....I guess we can forget the Renaissance then, can't we?
We can also forget the cathedrals, the stained glass windows, etc., etc.,
etc. We can also forget the glorious chinese and japanese creramics
that we as Americans ceramists worship as though we have organized
them into a religion....As a matter of fact, art never flourished unless it
was supported by money, and who had money back
then---merchants(read corporations) and monarchies(read
governments) and religions(read christianity, or any other major religion
in China, Japan, etc., etc.). Your average peasant did not produce
art...they could barely get enough to eat...same thing exists today.
How can you honestly look at any of the Renaissance paintings and
sculptures we have today of merchants, their marriageable daughters,
their married daughters, their families, etc, etc, and say that the visual art
of that time was not controlled by corporations? We can just do it faster
on TV. Would I choose to look at a portrait of a merchant's daughter if it
was on TV--I'd be the first one to the remote!
This is a complex issue...The idea of the NEA is not so bad...But a few
people controlling the taste of a nation....that isn't so good...is there a
better way?...maybe... Frankly, I like the idea of every community getting
a block art grant, just like the state welfare apportionment--then,
communities can establish their own arts funding...wouldn't that be a
hoot?
The people of America have already been polled about the art they like to
look at--by three Soviet emigre artists who decided to embark on a
definition of art by democracy...they surveyed and they found that
Americans prefer the color blue, and they like landscapes, and animals.
So make your future pots blue, with landscape-y brush marks, and
include some cute animals---and then you will sell enough to finance art
and YOU get to choose.....
Sandy
kinoko@junction.net on thu 19 jun 97
CLay Arts Disc. Grp, A- Since virtually ALL elected and appointed
government 'ins' are either business persons of some sort and are ALL
business-orientred, the discussion leaves one one with far more questions
than answers. If government "fails" at whatever it puts its hands to, must
we also draw aconslusion that all elected officials were failures in
business? Nelson Rockefeller,Averil Harriman,et
al.AGREED.>----------------------------Original
message----------------------------
>Well, this has been interesting. I'm especially glad Russel chimed in
>with a perspective from Europe.
>
>Since I started all of this, I wanted to make my perspective on the
>matter clear -- and move on to something else.
>
>A. Central governments have as much business anointing art as they
do
>anointing a religon.
>
>Yes, Vince, I suppose I could be called a Libertarian, but I'm into
>politics like I'm into organized religon. I can't see where the central
>government of the US today does much of anything well. They can't even
>deliver the mail in a timely and cost effective manner - and we're
>supposed to trust them to care for culture?
>
>B. Regardless of it's size, the NEA represents a transfer of wealth from
>smaller towns to the large urban centers. Take the "it only costs
>$0.40/person" argument. OK, let's look at Ohio. With its 8 million
>inhabitants, this suggests that Ohio is "entitled" to $3.2 million in
>NEA dough. Cleveland, with it's 500,000 dwellers, by this scheme, would
>be allowed a $200,000 slice and Mansfield, which has 50,000 or so would
>get $20,000.
>
>It is not likely that Mansfield will get its cut, and if it did the
>majority would be consumed by administrative overhead. Cleveland, with a
>much more organized arts community receives a good bit more than the
>$200,000 suggested. This says to the dwellers of smaller cities that
>their tastes could only be insipid and that they really ought to drive 3
>hours if they want to get some _real_ culture -- photos of a whip up
>some guy's butt?
>
>Moreover, the largest recipients of NEA lucor are in the HUGE metropoli
>-- NYC, LA, etc, where the people are highly organized to locate
>themselves in the cash stream -- and where all _real_ (?) art happens
>anyway -- no? Is this in proportion to the willing butts available?
>
>C. Yes, coporations are lousy stewards of art and of people in general.
>People in a corporate system only exist to be exploited -- either by
>their labor or by being induced to believe that the sneakers they bought
>for $75.00 were a good deal even though they were made for $6.00 by
>people who live and work in abject squalor by a company that fired their
>neighbors to pull this off.
>
>On the other hand, we have a bit of a dichotomy here. Wasn't there a
>Clayart post enthusing about the Campbells Soup Tureen thing? I also
>note that Philip Morris has no trouble buying art for travelling
>expositions either.
>
>D. Popular culture should not be confused for art --
>
>Elton John is not John Coltrane; Michael (damaged goods) Jackson is not
>Ornette Coleman, etc. Fill in your own visual art examples -- my bag is
>music. John Coltrane never received Federal money, but worked hard
>against difficult circumstances -- and succeeded. Ornette Coleman has
>received a MacArthur grant (a Scholar's grant) as has Anthony Braxton.
>Not NEA money.
>
>E. The cream floats.Could I point out the uselessness of foam on a glas of
beer which also rises to the top,or the scum on the surface of most any fluid?
>
>Frank Zappa, in my view the most important American composer to have
>lived (listen to the Yellow Shark recording), NEVER accepted a dime from
>the feds, ranked on them endlessly in harsh terms, and did so in a way
>that sold records.Or: Zappa agreed with you and all other
reactionaries...and this sold records?
>
>He was also correct in his assertion that television is the "tool of the
>government and industry,too." This extends to Public (really corporate)
>TV. The sooner televisions get chucked into the trash, the sooner the
>visual arts become more nearly sought again. I'd rather keep my $0.40
>and spend it on flyers to encourage the destruction of all televisions.
>However, I'm not given the option.Now,now, you are blaming the messenger
again..and again..and again.
>
>E. The awards system at the NEA is corrupt.
>
>I have cited examples of this here before. In short, I am aware of a
>number of awards which were given to persons who were closely aquainted
>with a juror and who were later told they were given the award for just
>such reasons.
>
>This is not exclusive to the NEA, but can also be demonstrated through
>MFN status for China, where the corporations can fire all the Americans,
>hire Chinese for $1.00/day, export their goods duty free, sell them to
>Americans who now have much smaller wages (but they're "employed") while
>telling them they're benefitting/ We might also look at the juicy
>contracts fed to Lockheed/Boeing (who wants to move to China, too),
>General Dynamics, Raytheon, the oil industry, and so on.
>
>The problem with the NEA is that it was flagrant -- they sponsored an
>exhibition of (really mediocre in my view) photographs among which was a
>photo of a whip up a guy's butt -- among other of the same ilk. The
>people didn't like it, some thought it was flatly perverted, and they
>dispensed with it - and many strongly feel that the agency that
>sponsored it ought to be done away with, too. I say extend the logic to
>the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of
>Agriculture, and so on. Profligacy and corruption may be observed in any
>of these quarters at a scale which dwarfs the NEA by many orders of
>magnitude. The NEA only gets beat on because it's small and the people
>believe they can actually do something about it. Those who are opposed
>can also make their claims -- like, "you'll live to regret it". Doubtful
>as the best manifestations of creativity and cultural illumination were
>never funded by the feds with confiscated funds.
>
>Confusion continues to....becloud/rain. kinoko
*****************************************
*****************************************
** Don and Isao Morrill **
** Falkland, B.C. **
** kinoko@junction.net **
*****************************************
*****************************************
| |
|
