Bob Stryker on tue 10 jun 97
NEA received a budget of $99.5 million in fiscal year 1996 and $99.5
million in fiscal year 1997.
NEA costs each and every one of the U.S. taxpayers on this list about
$.40 annually.
To find out what the NEA does, you can visit their website at:
http://arts.endow.gov/
Bob Stryker
Minnesota Clay USA
http://www.mm.com/mnclayus/
mnclayus@mm.com
Frank Howell on wed 11 jun 97
Bob Stryker wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> NEA received a budget of $99.5 million in fiscal year 1996 and $99.5
> million in fiscal year 1997.
>
> NEA costs each and every one of the U.S. taxpayers on this list about
> $.40 annually.
>
> To find out what the NEA does, you can visit their website at:
> http://arts.endow.gov/
>
> Bob Stryker
> Minnesota Clay USA
> http://www.mm.com/mnclayus/
> mnclayus@mm.com
Bob
Since it costs so little, please pay my share. Of course some people
would say it's not the money but the principle.
Frank Howell
Marc Brackley on wed 11 jun 97
I have about a gazillion things to say to Levin's essay. I don't have the
time to get my response organized now so I'm just going to jump in with
this:
Calling Norman Rockwell a popular artist is merely the same thing as
calling McDonald's a popular restaurant. I don't have the quote exactly
right, but Burke once said that anytime public opinion and good taste
coincide, they do so by accident.
Marc Brackley - who is a lot more concerned with how the other $12,000 I
spent in taxes last year was spent, than I am about the 40 cents that went
to the NEA.
m&m Brackley on thu 12 jun 97
Second installment:
Levin says that many people love Mozart. Where are they going to listen to
it if not a symphony supported by public dollars? I don't know of any
city's orchestra that could survive without this support.
Marc Brackley - Who thinks if wars are as popular as they seem to be, why
aren't they funded with private money.
Karl P. Platt on thu 12 jun 97
>Calling Norman Rockwell a popular artist is merely the same thing as
>calling McDonald's a popular restaurant.
The assignation is correct. McDonald's is a highly popular restaurant.
Millions have been served. Likewise, Chez Panisse (sp?), that smallish
highly eclectic home of elaborate California Cuisine, is also popular --
and self supporting (profitable). Levine said nothing about the relative
merit of Rockwell's work. He made the point that it was/is immensely
popular. It is. By the same token, the best of the eclectic can also
find support, as in the case of Chez Panisse. Why can't the
visual/performing arts play by the same rules as the culinary arts? What
makes them so special? The contrapositive is to suggest that we need to
develop a new bureaucracy -- The National Endowment for Culinaria (?).
>I don't have the quote exactly right, but Burke once said that anytime >public
Whose taste? A lot of people really _like_ McDonalds (I'm not one of
them).
KpP -- hoping for better replies
Paul Lewing on fri 13 jun 97
I just have to jump in here with a word of defense for Norman
Rockwell.
One of the primary purposes of art is to convey an emotional message
or evoke an emotion in the viewer. One may argue with the degree of
sophistication of NR's message, but there is no mistaking what his
message is, ever. The man was a brilliant portraitist, and had an
uncanny ability to convey emotional information through the depiction
of the human figure. And his message was conveyed completely
independent of language, which is another function of art.
Sometimes we forget, in these days when shock and outrage are the
emotions we see portrayed so often in contemporary art, that there are
other emotions to be evoked, and that all emotions are valid subject
matter for art. Comfort, happiness, love, homeyness, nostalgia,
patriotism, these are all just as important as subjects for art. In
fact, I'm a little surprised to hear this kind of criticism from
potters, whose work is so often about just these emotions of comfort
and homeyness.
So anyway, I agree that Rockwell sometimes delivered his message with
a sledgehammer when a gentle tap would have done, but do consider that
he always delivered his intended message more clearly than almost
anyone else has done in recent times. Ask yourself if your work does
that.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on fri 13 jun 97
At 3:16 -0800 6/12/97, Karl P. Platt was quoted out of context:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Why can't the
>visual/performing arts play by the same rules as the culinary arts? What
>makes them so special? The contrapositive is to suggest that we need to
>develop a new bureaucracy -- The National Endowment for Culinaria (?).
With the addition of this remark, the Micheal Levin article makes even more
sense ;-). Somehow, I just can't muster the trust that's neccessary to be
placed into the all-knowing wisdom of the marketplace.
Patrick
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
*****************************************************************************
Darryl Baird on fri 13 jun 97
re}
> the best of the eclectic can also
> find support, as in the case of Chez Panisse. Why can't the
> visual/performing arts play by the same rules as the culinary arts? What
> makes them so special? The contrapositive is to suggest that we need to
> develop a new bureaucracy -- The National Endowment for Culinaria
Wow. A real case of faulty deductive logic.
How can one compare the products of culture with the commerce of
specialty cuisine?
The basis of the answer and the logic is capitalism. If it is good or
has value, it HAS to be marketable or it is without value.
It's easy to consume(eat) food; it requires virtually no understanding,
no education, no appreciation of UN-popular culture. The contrapositive
isn't quite so easy...is it easy to understand, requiring no (or little)
education, or have an appreciation of the myriad complex agendas
projected into art creation? No.
To make the arguement of "specialness" apply, you must first promote the
equation of culture being a commodity. It isn't. You can't concieve,
build, market, and profit from culture-production. But...you can create
an environment that is supportive, e.i. public support or government tax
allocation.
I'd egladly check a box at the top of the 1040, if it asked if I wanted
to contribute to the arts. Instead, I get to chose how much gravy the
candidates can spend before they must call on the special-interests
coffers.
................................................................................
I'm currently working on the conceptual problem of how to "visualize"
the notion this debate epitomizes. I've been researching the ruins of
Pompeii as a model. I've been grappling with the problem of how to
"freeze in time" our cultural identity, as if we were suddenly overcome
by some natural disaster...to look at our culture 2000 years in the
future. What would the archeologists make of our culture? What would
they make of the art on our 'villa' walls? What would the grafitti say
to them?
The recent discussions about concrete casting, etc. have been very
helpful in solving a few problems of the form.
Darryl Baird
MFA student, University of North Texas
Marc Brackley on fri 13 jun 97
>Levine said nothing about the relative
>merit of Rockwell's work. He made the point that it was/is immensely
>popular. It is.
I also said nothing about the relative merit of Rockwell's work, nor the
relative merit of McDonald's food. I merely said they were both popular
(actually they have serve billions, but who's counting?). What I got from
Levine's statements (perhaps mistakenly) is that if the art is worth
anything, it will be supported by popularity and private $'s. My argument
to that is that Van Gogh never sold a painting. However the public may
enjoy access to his significant works thanks to public support of museums.
Additionally, did I miss something (I admit I often do) or did Levine think
that church support of the arts was different than government support, and
that that church support was somehow removed from public dollars?
New issue: What about Public Art? (Art In Public Places) There are some 300
wonderful cities throughout the US making themselves a better place to hang
out in because of their public art ordinances. I really don't see private
dollars taking over so that a city can build a public building that is an
awesome addition to the environment. vs. a cinder block building. Where
would the sculpture project of SDSU be without public support.
And finally, (scratch that, I'll probably have more later) It's not
important to change anybody's mind on the subject of art as a suitable
expenditure for government. My point is that there are many thing the
government spends money on that I don't agree with, but other people do so
I figure what the heck, it also spends money on things I do agree with. Why
can't those who don't agree with public funding of the arts do the same
thing?
Marc Brackley - who promises to try to come up with a better response.
Karl P. Platt on sat 14 jun 97
>>Wow. A real case of faulty deductive logic.<<
C'mon, pal. Ad Homenim arguments don't fly here. If you want to make an
argument, please do so.
>It's easy to consume(eat) food; it requires virtually no understanding,
>no education, no appreciation of UN-popular culture.
Oh? Tell that to the French or the patrons of Chez Panisse and see how
far it goes.
Are you saying that there is no difference between McDonald's Egg
McMuffin and a Quiche Lorraine in Lorraine? Or is this to say if I'm
offered a plate of federal government subsidized pickled chicken spleens
(distinctly un-popular in your culture) I will, in time, be induced
(coerced?)to enjoy them -- even though by my own choice I'd really
rather have a Whopper.
>But...you can create an environment that is supportive, e.i. public >support or
What you're really talking about is confiscating the wealth of others an
putting it in your pocket. This is reprehensible whether the pocket is
that of General Dynamics or some individual's idea of what high art is.
>I've been researching the ruins of Pompeii as a model. I've been >grappling wit
Anything plastic from Disney will do.
>What would the grafitti say to them?
The same things petroglyphs say to us.
>Instead, I get to chose how much gravy the candidates can spend before >they mu
Here's what you're trying to get at -- I think. You want a say in where
your hard-earned goes, and to see it applied to something you don't
regard to be a rathole -- Levin was making just this point.
Cindy on sat 14 jun 97
Karl,
I'm with you. Popular taste may not always agree with our own taste, but if
a thing is good enough, it will find sufficient public support. People
should not be forced to pay for art unless they choose to. The best (IMO)
artists I know are self-supporting. Many of the folks I've read on the list
wouldn't call them artists because they aren't inaccessible enough to the
common (read vulgar, uneducated, uncultured) people of this world. They're
mostly derivative--from what I hear here, you can't be an artist if you
create anything faintly recognizable. And what they create is generally
intended to be beautiful.
I've looked at NEA's site, and must say I am mucho unimpressed. The lady
with the "visual" poetry was the only one I took time on, so I can't claim
to have made a thorough study of the page. I understand her motives, but
really think Disney stuff is much better. (And Disney isn't exactly my
fave.) I understand why she needs the NEA. No one, including the visually
impaired, is going to pay money for that stuff. Frankly, I shouldn't have
to, either. If I'm going to give my money away (and I enjoy giving), I'd
like to do it of my own free will.
Cindy Strnad
Russel Fouts on sat 14 jun 97
------------------
Marc,
=3E=3E New issue: What about Public Art? (Art In Public Places) There are =
some
300 wonderful cities throughout the US making themselves a better place to
hang out in because of their public art ordinances. I really don't see
private dollars taking over so that a city can build a public building that
is an awesome addition to the environment. vs. a cinder block building. =
=3C=3C
They would if they could put advertising on it. Like the city in the US
that wanted to re-paint their Calder in the city colors=21=21
BTW in Brussels almost all the new street signs (nice, white on navy
blue enamal on metal, 20=22x10=22) are =22sponsored=22 by local businesses =
who are
allowed to put their name in a white rectangular box at the bottom. The
city just couldn't seem to manage it. I thought it was a clever idea. =22rue
Amedee Lynen=22 brought to you by the ICA or =22rue Sax-Cobourg=22 brought =
to you
by MultiClean.
BUT we have art in the metro=21=21
Russel (where street signs have to be BIG to accomodate French,
Flemish, advertising and my poor eyesight)
-------------------------
Recent recipient of the
=22Uncle Owens=22 Potter Startup Grant
-------------------------
=21=5ENavFont02F03AE0007NGHHJB050C6
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on sun 15 jun 97
Excuse me? Appealing to prejudice is the whole point of Levin's article.
Patrick
At 4:51 -0700 6/14/97, Karl P. Platt wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>>Wow. A real case of faulty deductive logic.<<
>
>C'mon, pal. Ad Homenim arguments don't fly here. If you want to make an
>argument, please do so.
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
*****************************************************************************
Ric Swenson on sun 15 jun 97
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I just have to jump in here with a word of defense for Norman
>Rockwell.
>
>snip.......
>Paul Lewing, Seattle
------------------reply------------
Paul, I have to agreee with your post to some extent. My taste is not
everyman's/woman's taste.
Maybe this thread is getting a bit frayed?
Who should pay for art?
We all should.
It may sound strange, but I have always considered Norman Rockwell to the
the "Andy Worhol" of his age. I believe the popular culture of each
generation has its own particular symbols that strike a chord in that age,
and it popularizes that artist for a period of time.
Exposure is the key.
If an artist's work is still appreciated and honored for it's messages 100
years after its presentation to the world then you might consider that it
is a notable body of work. (?) If it is around in 500 years, it might
have more "status", in being honored by art historians and maybe by the
general population, but it still doesn't mean I have to like it.
IMHO , as a civilized society, we need to support the arts in as many ways
as we can.
I, for one, do not object to some of my tax money going to Art in Public
Places, Artists working with kids in schools, or a hundred other things
that the National Endowment for the Arts, and many local, and state arts
councils try to do to promote an appreciation of all aspects of our Arts,
arts, crafts and culture.
As an example...
In 1978, There was a tremendous outcry when the Anchorage Federal Building
(GSA) selected a panel of judges that selected some artworks that locals
didn't appreciate (at first). In the outcry, and the subsequent discussion
of "modern art", it was pointed out that the cost to each citizen for a
particular buildings art work was less than a penny per person. I wanted
to make a point, so I stood in front of the Dan Flavin, Robert Hudson and
Sam Francis works and offered to buy "comment rights" from citizens. I had
no takers. No one wanted their penny back. They reserved their right to
complain, glorify, or comment in any way tey decided to about the works
displayed there. Some wanted local artists represented and resented the
intrusion of "outside " artists. Some wanted only 100 year old pictures of
Mt McKinley (Denali) by Sydney Lawrence. Lawrence was a (good) "genre
....landscape" painter...but his works, quite frankly, would look a little
'dated' in the chrome and glass Federal Building.
The dialog about this was, ...as the dialog today...is a good thing. Our
raised consciousness makes us think. Thinking is a good thing. Sometimes
even arguing is a good thing.
Taste is a funny thing, after teaching art history for a few years, I
recognized that it was a long term project to attempt to "change" anyone's
taste in art. ( so I stopped trying to do that and just EXPOSED students to
work...and we talked about their reactions and my reactions to the work)
People come to appreciate some of what they are exposed to that 'strikes a
chord' in their mind. BUT, If we are not exposed, we cannot develop that
taste for art or music or dance. No one says we have to like all Art.
If we expose the public to personal expressions in art and well crafted
pottery, sculpture, dance, music, etc. then we need to allow them to
comment...(let the art historians, in a hundred years, decide what was
really "lasting" about an artist's statement.... That's for 'posterity',
eh?) ......art is for all of us today a way to learn about ourselves and
our culture.... To learn to appreciate the best, the finest, the most
thought provoking statements of our age.
Exposure is the key. Dialog is essential.
but...
I still have a roll of pennies and could make the same offer, of buying
your rights to comment about art purchased from public monies, to those
that don't want their tax dollars spent for the arts.
Probably not many takers?
Just my rambling thoughts on a sunny Vermont morning.
This is subject to fill many dissertations. !
my $0.02, so to speak.
Best,
Ric Swenson
rswenson@bennington.edu
Kirk Morrison on sun 15 jun 97
On 14 Jun 97 at 7:56, Russel Fouts wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> ------------------
>
> Marc,
>
> >> New issue: What about Public Art? (Art In Public Places) There are some
> 300 wonderful cities throughout the US making themselves a better place to
> hang out in because of their public art ordinances. I really don't see
> private dollars taking over so that a city can build a public building that
> is an awesome addition to the environment. vs. a cinder block building. <<
>
On the Federal level support of art is to be honest barred by the
Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, where does it bar
it,by its not being specifically mentioned. The Federal Goverment is
given specfic rights responsablities and are barred from any expansion
of them. " All rights not given to the Federal Goverment are reserved
to the States and to the people" The states can choose to do it as can
local goverments, IF THE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SUPPORT ART.
Kirk
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
Vince Pitelka on sun 15 jun 97
I am not going to aim this at any individual, but I am really appalled at
some of the anti-National Endowment for the Arts postings on this list.
What the Hell is the matter with you people?? You are completely missing
the point. Unless you are a die-hard Libertarian, I cannot understand any
of your logic at all. We are talking about 40 cents per year of your tax
money to support the NEA. Throughout history, some of the healthiest and
most progressive cultures have supported non-traditional artworks. Without
some sort of funding structure to encourage risk-taking and avant-garde art,
the only things which determine the evolution of art are the market place
and the inclinations of artists who have become so successful as to be able
to do whatever they damn well please. You may not like a lot of the
projects which have been funded by the NEA. I do not like lots of them.
But again, that has nothing to do with it. That is the downside of having a
public funding structure, but the payoffs are so great as to make this
downside completely inconsequential. And if you condemn the entire NEA
because some of the funded art seems unworthy or ridiculous, you are being
INCREDIBLY short sighted and small minded.
Please do not expect private corporations to fill the void here. When
private corporations fund art, they generally fund only the art which they
approve of. This generally excludes anything which could conceivably be
considered offensive or controversial. Among the things art can and must
do, it responds to and illuminates the gritty realities of everyday life,
and it cannot do so under a corporate funding structure. Such work is
often not accepted by the marketplace either, but it is critically important
to the healthy evolution of art and society.
I see the American public increasingly obsessed with passive, mind-numbing
avocations - television, video rental, video games, romance novels, hanging
out at the mall, etc., and I wonder where it is leading. We need more art
in our lives, and we really need it badly. Sure, much of the NEA funded art
is distant from the everyday lives of most people, but the mere fact that it
is out there is reassuring, and eventually it does impact us all in some
way. I believe absolutely that the sum total of art being produced has a
major positive effect on the health and evolution of civilization. Without
it, things deteriorate towards the mundane. Without the act of making and
appreciating art, our creative and perceptual powers atrophy.
I am not implying that the NEA is the end-all and fix-all, but there was
something very extraordinary in the Kennedy/Johnson Great Society. Much of
it may have been pie-in-the-sky, but the NEA is not. Despite constant
problems, both in terms of conservative attacks from the outside (where does
that place you???) and misguided policy on the inside, the NEA has done an
enormous amount of good. History will show that the reign of the NEA is
marked by an extraordinary vitality and diversity in American artistic
expression. Shall we end that now?? If you are not part of saving the NEA,
then you are part of destroying it. If you let that happen, you will regret
it for the rest of your life.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on sun 15 jun 97
Thank you, Vince, for a fine rant. The fact remains is that this is an old
argument based on easy targets, prejudice, unbelievable leaps of deductive
logic worthy of the early 90's, and makes me long for the days of the art
vs. craft debate.
Patrick
At 8:29 -0700 6/15/97, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I am not going to aim this at any individual, but I am really appalled at
>some of the anti-National Endowment for the Arts postings on this list.
>What the Hell is the matter with you people?? (snip!)
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
*****************************************************************************
m&m Brackley on sun 15 jun 97
>People should not be forced to pay for art unless they choose to.
Works for me... as long as other people don't have to be forced to pay for
the things they don't want to pay for.
You stop paying tax dollars for art. I'll stop paying tax dollars for the
things I don't want. Lets see which of us retires the earliest on our
savings. I'll be able to buy all the art I can desire, and with what you
save, you won't even be able to buy a roll of toilet paper for a B2.
What's that you say? The things I don't want are more important to keep
than the things you don't want?
Marc - who says... who's rat hole? and maintains that Maplethorpe is one of
the most brilliant photographers to have drawn a breath.
Harvey Sadow on mon 16 jun 97
Each and every contributor is pretty sure that they are right on this
one, folks. Fear and prejudice has never yet been swayed by logic.
Logic is seldom dissuaded by anger. Live long and prosper, and beam me
up, Scotty. Maybe the issue here is not who should pay for them or who
gets them, but who decides who gets them.
Harvey Sadow
Jeff Lawrence on mon 16 jun 97
Vince Pitelka writes:
> Without
>some sort of funding structure to encourage risk-taking and avant-garde art,
>he only things which determine the evolution of art are the market place
>and the inclinations of artists who have become so successful as to be able
>to do whatever they damn well please.
Excuse me Vince. The whole point of an avante-garde is that it snaps its
fingers at convention. Sounds like you see it as the province of earnest
self-promoters who shine in "peer" reviews. I suggest your stance condemns
potential avante-gardists to a pathetic life of comfortable parasitism,
hooked on the soma of easy living at somebody else's expense.
It's true there are bigger boodoggles than NEA funding; I see its traveling
exhibitions and support of art popular its masters/mistresses as sparks of
enlightenment. But cozy sponsorship of marginal but well-connected artists
doing shock art do little for that agency's rep or future. I say do the
in-your-face artists a favor and grant them the purer if sterner pleasure of
doing it on their own!
And yes, I did vote Libertarian.
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
Sun Dagger Design
ph/fax 505-753-5913
Cindy on mon 16 jun 97
Marc,
IMHO, the job of the federal government is to provide for the defense of
the nation, build roads, and organize law-enforcement. I realize that's a
rather radical statement and that it'll never happen. Lots of people don't
want it to happen and they have good reasons for their sentiments. Me, I
think the government sticks its nose into entirely too many segments of
private life. Art is just one of many. There are a lot of things being paid
for by our tax dollars which the government has no business being involved
in. Frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the bureaucracy's taste in
art.
Cindy
> >People should not be forced to pay for art unless they choose to.
>
> Works for me... as long as other people don't have to be forced to pay
for
> the things they don't want to pay for.
>
> You stop paying tax dollars for art. I'll stop paying tax dollars for the
> things I don't want. Lets see which of us retires the earliest on our
> savings. I'll be able to buy all the art I can desire, and with what you
> save, you won't even be able to buy a roll of toilet paper for a B2.
> What's that you say? The things I don't want are more important to keep
> than the things you don't want?
>
> Marc - who says... who's rat hole? and maintains that Maplethorpe is one
of
> the most brilliant photographers to have drawn a breath.
Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 16 jun 97
Vince,
I hate to say it, but after doing some research on the NEA Fellowship
system I have come to the conclusion that it is not such a shame that
these grants are not awarded any longer.
When jurors recommend the jury panel for the following cycle and then the
previous jurors get big grants, then one suspects that something is wrong.
When the Overview Panel (the panel that evaluates the performance of the
jury system) is loaded with previous jurors then one suspects that there
is something wrong.
When previous Fellowship winners are awarded the bulk of the monies
allotted then one suspects that something is wrong.
When the jurying process involves a "Passion Round" so that an individual
juror can bring back particular artist's slides for lobbying then one
suspects that something is wrong.
When potters rarely receive Fellowship awards in the Craft Category and
the majority of the awards are given to ceramic sculptors then one
suspects something is wrong.
I'm sure that the Individual Fellowship section of the NEA was very
helpful to a number of people in the field. I do not question whether
they deserved the awards. My question concerning this part of the NEA has
been: did the way that it was organized and operated unfairly benefit
particular people? When one looks at the slides and the process
the answer appears to be yes.
Congress in its legislation to enact the NEA strictly prohibits the
promotion of a particlar kind of expression. If one looks at the data
concering ceramics in the Craft Category of the NEA, then one can easily
come to the conclusion that ceramic sculpture was being promoted at the
expense of pottery by virtue of the way that the competition was
organized.
Additionally, since at its zenith the NEA was awarding almost one million
dollars for indvidual grants in one funding cycle it could not help, by
its very nature, but to produce an undue influence on the field. In other
words, with that much money being awarded and the media coverage that
followed the nature of craft expressions could be influenced in a
significant way. Some might say this could be good. Others, like myself,
see some major problems with this "steering" power.
For this reason alone, I am not unhappy that the Individual Fellowship
system has been discontinued. (See "Perestroika for NEA Fellowships", CM,
Feb., 1989.)
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Patrick & Lynn Hilferty wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Thank you, Vince, for a fine rant. The fact remains is that this is an old
> argument based on easy targets, prejudice, unbelievable leaps of deductive
> logic worthy of the early 90's, and makes me long for the days of the art
> vs. craft debate.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> At 8:29 -0700 6/15/97, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >I am not going to aim this at any individual, but I am really appalled at
> >some of the anti-National Endowment for the Arts postings on this list.
> >What the Hell is the matter with you people?? (snip!)
>
> ******************************************************************************
> Patrick Hilferty
> Belmont, CA 94002
> E-Mail:
> Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
> *****************************************************************************
>
Kat Berger on mon 16 jun 97
I pay large percentages of my taxes to support the military. I'm a pacifist.
I certainly don't agree with our military and with the wars that they fight
(please there is no need to lecture me on why a military is more complicated
and necessary for a country then just to fight a war) but I pay my taxes to
them anyway. I understand that even though I don't agree with it sometimes
things must be done until society changes. Remember that art is a major
catalist for change and development in all societies. Look at your history.
Art has always been there and is just as important as our military, our
science, our medicine, our businesses. Part of art's reason for being is to
force discussion on issues so as a society we can decide what we want.
Remember governments that don't support ALL the arts. NAZI GERMANY
COMMUNIST RUSSIA
REBECCA MOTT on mon 16 jun 97
I passed over a couple dozen statements regarding the NEA and finally
had to add to the conversation, especially after Cindy's comments.
It seems to me that it is necessary sometimes for art (and this
includes all of the arts, not just the visual) to make unpopular
statements, to shine a spotlight on accepted activities that may
require another look. Many people don't want to put in the effort or
take the time to try to understand works that aren't obvious or maybe
they don't like the statement. These works may not be initially
accepted in the "marketplace" but that doesn't mean their value is
any less. Think of Van Gogh. Hitler also had a lot to say about the
modern artists in Germany (they didn't get any support either.)
Apparently my tax dollars go to many things
for which I have no say, from beekeepers to defense contractors. Is
it your contention that we should only have to pay for those things
we want to? I could save a lot more than $.43.
R. Mott
Cindy on tue 17 jun 97
Rebecca,
It is my contention that the federal government should not be the judge of
good or bad art. Doesn't it make you feel just a little creepy that they've
put themselves in that position? I say it's good that Hitler didn't support
art--imagine what he would have supported! (Of course, he had pretty good
taste when it came to stealing art, I hear.)
It is my contention that the private sector, including people who believe
in all sorts of diverse forms of expression, should be allowed to keep far
more of their tax dollars to support those things they choose to support.
If the common man is such a bad judge of art, who, pray tell, is sitting in
the seat of judge on behalf of the federal govt.? Someone far superior to
you or I, apparently.
And you are right. The NEA represents only a wee portion of the money
misspent, wasted, and poorly administered by the government. So why should
we trust Uncle with our culture? Or our science? Or our medical
research--(hasn't it occurred to you that the AMA has *no* vested interest
in curing anything?) I'm not bashing support of art. I'm saying that art
supported by the gov. is art controlled by the gov. That is *not* good.
Cindy Strnad
> I passed over a couple dozen statements regarding the NEA and finally
> had to add to the conversation, especially after Cindy's comments.
> It seems to me that it is necessary sometimes for art (and this
> includes all of the arts, not just the visual) to make unpopular
> statements, to shine a spotlight on accepted activities that may
> require another look. Many people don't want to put in the effort or
> take the time to try to understand works that aren't obvious or maybe
> they don't like the statement. These works may not be initially
> accepted in the "marketplace" but that doesn't mean their value is
> any less. Think of Van Gogh. Hitler also had a lot to say about the
> modern artists in Germany (they didn't get any support either.)
>
> Apparently my tax dollars go to many things
> for which I have no say, from beekeepers to defense contractors. Is
> it your contention that we should only have to pay for those things
> we want to? I could save a lot more than $.43.
>
> R. Mott
Vince Pitelka on tue 17 jun 97
My post of yesterday was a bit of a rant, but I have no problem with that.
I stand by what I said.
Jess said:
>Excuse me Vince. The whole point of an avante-garde is that it snaps its
>fingers at convention. Sounds like you see it as the province of earnest
>self-promoters who shine in "peer" reviews. I suggest your stance condemns
>potential avante-gardists to a pathetic life of comfortable parasitism,
>hooked on the soma of easy living at somebody else's expense.
Almost everyone, pro-NEA or anti-NEA, agrees that the peer-review process
needs (or needed) revamping. It is true that when one examines the juries
and awards over the years, there is a great deal of inbreeding. So, do we
can the whole sucker because of THIS???? Wow. Cut off your nose to spite
your face.
Isolated avant-garde artists can rarely maintain the momentum to accomplish
much (of course there are rare exceptions). The contemporary phenomenon of
avant-garde art seems to work best either with grant support or with unified
group momentum born of special circumstances (or both). At many times
through the 19th and 20th century art there has been unified group momentum
fueling new work. At other times there has been government support which
created options not otherwise available. The point of a government
arts-fellowship-granting system, when it works properly, is that it
encourages a level of risk-taking that is rarely possible in a market-driven
system. And of course many people are offended by the work of Karen
Findley, Andres Serrano, etc., but again, are we going to throw out the
whole system because some of the art goes over the edge and some of the
jurying is corrupt and inbred???
Some NEA-funded art has certainly pushed the limits, testing society's
tolerance and understanding of obscenity and pornography. But look at it
this way: if art is going to impact the welfare and evolution of society,
one thing it must do is address the ills of society in direct and graphic
terms. It is your choice whether or not you wish to view this work. You do
not have to enter the gallery or museum to observe what you consider to be
offensive art. It is not being forced upon you.
>I see its traveling
>exhibitions and support of art popular its masters/mistresses as sparks of
>enlightenment. But cozy sponsorship of marginal but well-connected artists
>doing shock art do little for that agency's rep or future.
That's true. The NEA has brought much of its problems upon itself. So we
say "They screwed it up, and now its best to just can the whole mess." It's
that same old "they." And the number of artists who did "shock art" just to
see how far they could push the system was an extremely small percentage of
work funded by the NEA.
Cindy said:
>Me, I
>think the government sticks its nose into entirely too many segments of
>private life. Art is just one of many. There are a lot of things being paid
>for by our tax dollars which the government has no business being involved
>in. Frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the bureaucracy's taste in
>art.
That's the point. The NEA has nothing to do with the bureaucracy's taste in
art, and it shouldn't. When any bureaucracy gets involved in jurying or
legislating the creation of art, the results are disastrous. The NEA is not
by any stretch of the imagination a case of the government sticking its nose
into art. The DOWNFALL of the NEA certainly IS a case of government
sticking its nose into art.
And Kevin, you point out all sorts of things which are/were wrong with the
NEA grant system. Again, do we shoot ourself in the foot because the system
had problems? I don't get it. And is it any surprise at all that the grant
awards seemed to favor ceramic sculpture over pottery?? This is not a
problem with the NEA, it is a problem with the art world. You are dredging
up problems which exist throughout the art world, and blaming them on the NEA.
Kevin also says:
>Additionally, since at its zenith the NEA was awarding almost one million
>dollars for indvidual grants in one funding cycle it could not help, by
>its very nature, but to produce an undue influence on the field. In other
>words, with that much money being awarded and the media coverage that
>followed the nature of craft expressions could be influenced in a
>significant way. Some might say this could be good. Others, like myself,
>see some major problems with this "steering" power.
Is this for real?? Magazines, newspapers, organizations, unions,
corporations, etc. have always had this kind of steering power. You want to
condemn the NEA for steering the direction of art by giving away money???
Wow. When corporations fund art, 99% of the time we get innocuous
traditional realism or geometric formalism. Don't get me wrong. I have no
problems with Frank Stella, Sol Lewitt, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, Bridget
Riley, etc. But who supports and encourages the art which really grapples
with controveresial issues?
Finally, an unsigned post says:
>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?
NO! NO! Of course we cannot trust them to care for culture. That's the
whole point. That's why all the conservatives and fundamentalists have
fought the NEA so aggressively. They WANT to be the conservators of
American culture, and they cannot control the NEA. They want to condemn and
restrict art which they see as challenging mainstream religious morality and
"traditional family values. They want to spread ignorance and censorship.
He/She goes on:
>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.
This is a little silly. I would very much like to see the NEA focus more on
rural artists and art projects, but is it any surprise that the urban
centers get most of the grants? The urban centers are where most new art
appears.
And:
>D. Popular culture should not be confused for art --
Huh?? Let's not get into the "low art/high art" debate. You are being
elitist and classist. Don't presume to predict who will have the enduring
influence. One of the healthiest things about 20th century art is the way
it responds to popular culture. If allowed and encouraged to do so, perhaps
more Americans will be won back into the fold.
When the NEA is gone, especially with the contemporary climate of
conservative and moderate political leanings, it will be a Hell of a long
time before we see anything like it again, and history will show that during
the intervening period there will be far less art which takes risks and
challenges/illuminates the real problems of society. I still say that all
the downside issues, all the problems do not amount to a hill of beans
compared to the noble accomplishments and possibilities of the NEA.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Doug Gray on tue 17 jun 97
I suppose I see this argument in a slightly different way than has
been discussed thus far. Take art out of the equation, and what do
you have. Some people want the government to pay for a particular
service. Others don't want the government to pay for that service.
If our country is based on the fact that we are all entitled to
certain freedoms and rights, then the government should provide that
service for the people who are interested. Cancelling the service
would mean that certain people would be denied their rights (in this
case the right to publicly fund art) What about the other's?? If
they don't want the service, they don't have to participate. That
doesn't mean that you have to deny everyone the previlege. Think
about all the services the government provides and all the rights that
we as American have, and then consider how many of them you personally
participate in or benefit from. I think about all the social security
tax that has been taken from each of my pay checks since I began
working at age 16. Honestly, I don't believe that I will benefit from
this at all. Odds are that the social security fund will not be
around in 35 or 40 years when I need it. Am I complaining? Am I
asking that it be dissolved? No, I simply start saving money for
retirement in another way.
I agree that the government does, in general, a pretty pathetic job in
managing a lot of things. The coruption of the NEA panelist and
jurors that was pointed out is typical of our government in all areas,
not just art. Think about $100 staplers, etc. Our government is not
very efficient, granted. But Art is an important facet of our
culture, of every culture. Does that mean that the government should
be the only the only major supporter? Of course not. Does that mean
that we don't have a responsibility in supporting the arts? Of course
not. The NEA could be better, sure but why does that mean that it
should be disolved. If we dissolved every poorly run facet of the
government we wouldn't have much left to argue about would we?
Instead of shutting it down we should be arguing about how to make it
work. How do we see that more poeple benefit from the grants? How do
we correct the inequalities between rural and urban art funding? This
is the real challenge, making it work. This would make for a more
interesting clayart thread as well. On to other topics...
Doug Gray
Alpine, TX
dgray@sul-ross-1.sulross.edu
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on tue 17 jun 97
Oh please. Bringing baseless conspiricy theories into this pointless
argument debases it even further than even I could have thought possible.
Patrick
At 9:32 -0700 6/17/97, Cindy wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>And you are right. The NEA represents only a wee portion of the money
>misspent, wasted, and poorly administered by the government. So why should
>we trust Uncle with our culture? Or our science? Or our medical
>research--(hasn't it occurred to you that the AMA has *no* vested interest
>in curing anything?) I'm not bashing support of art. I'm saying that art
>supported by the gov. is art controlled by the gov. That is *not* good.
>
>Cindy Strnad
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
******************************************************************************
Hluch - Kevin A. on wed 18 jun 97
Vince,
After looking at all of the slides of all of the Indvidual Fellowship
award winners in the ceramics category of the crafts area of the NEA I
found that the previous award winners were receiving an ever higher
proportion of the funds allocated. It wasn't difficult to extrapolate
and find that if the system were not changed, by 3 or four funding cycles
into the future one would have HAD to received a PREVIOUS grant to get
one. In other words ALL fellowships would have been awarded to previous
grantees.
One could say that in this the NEA was TOO successful. The previous
grantees held a distinct edge. For those who believe that art is an
elitist activity accomplished exclusively for a powerful, moneyed minority
then I guess this was the system for you. If left alone it might have
produced a small class of very succcessful artists producing art for the
culturati. It ties right in with the rest of the fine art culture's
apparatus.
But I don't have much use for a system whose legislative duty was to guage
the health of the arts in the U.S. but had never even bothered to analyse
their own statistics and their impact on the field.
By the way, did I mention that at least one well-known artist has
domiciles in various states and therefore can take advantage of the
"trickle down" effect of NEA funding via STATE fellowships?
The more one looks into this mess the more appalling it appears.I suggest
you try it. You might learn a few things.
The NEA did not shoot itself in the foot, in blew its own genitals off.
Perhaps, Bruce Bobbit deserves a NEA Individual Fellowship.
And by the way, it is very difficult to fix corrupt bureaucracies.
Sometimes it's better just to smash them to smithereens. We can ask our
new Russian friends about this. You might even question a few Chinese
people. I personally think the Romanians had it right.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> My post of yesterday was a bit of a rant, but I have no problem with that.
> I stand by what I said.
>
> Jess said:
> >Excuse me Vince. The whole point of an avante-garde is that it snaps its
> >fingers at convention. Sounds like you see it as the province of earnest
> >self-promoters who shine in "peer" reviews. I suggest your stance condemns
> >potential avante-gardists to a pathetic life of comfortable parasitism,
> >hooked on the soma of easy living at somebody else's expense.
>
> Almost everyone, pro-NEA or anti-NEA, agrees that the peer-review process
> needs (or needed) revamping. It is true that when one examines the juries
> and awards over the years, there is a great deal of inbreeding. So, do we
> can the whole sucker because of THIS???? Wow. Cut off your nose to spite
> your face.
>
> Isolated avant-garde artists can rarely maintain the momentum to accomplish
> much (of course there are rare exceptions). The contemporary phenomenon of
> avant-garde art seems to work best either with grant support or with unified
> group momentum born of special circumstances (or both). At many times
> through the 19th and 20th century art there has been unified group momentum
> fueling new work. At other times there has been government support which
> created options not otherwise available. The point of a government
> arts-fellowship-granting system, when it works properly, is that it
> encourages a level of risk-taking that is rarely possible in a market-driven
> system. And of course many people are offended by the work of Karen
> Findley, Andres Serrano, etc., but again, are we going to throw out the
> whole system because some of the art goes over the edge and some of the
> jurying is corrupt and inbred???
>
> Some NEA-funded art has certainly pushed the limits, testing society's
> tolerance and understanding of obscenity and pornography. But look at it
> this way: if art is going to impact the welfare and evolution of society,
> one thing it must do is address the ills of society in direct and graphic
> terms. It is your choice whether or not you wish to view this work. You do
> not have to enter the gallery or museum to observe what you consider to be
> offensive art. It is not being forced upon you.
>
> >I see its traveling
> >exhibitions and support of art popular its masters/mistresses as sparks of
> >enlightenment. But cozy sponsorship of marginal but well-connected artists
> >doing shock art do little for that agency's rep or future.
>
> That's true. The NEA has brought much of its problems upon itself. So we
> say "They screwed it up, and now its best to just can the whole mess." It's
> that same old "they." And the number of artists who did "shock art" just to
> see how far they could push the system was an extremely small percentage of
> work funded by the NEA.
>
> Cindy said:
> >Me, I
> >think the government sticks its nose into entirely too many segments of
> >private life. Art is just one of many. There are a lot of things being paid
> >for by our tax dollars which the government has no business being involved
> >in. Frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the bureaucracy's taste in
> >art.
>
> That's the point. The NEA has nothing to do with the bureaucracy's taste in
> art, and it shouldn't. When any bureaucracy gets involved in jurying or
> legislating the creation of art, the results are disastrous. The NEA is not
> by any stretch of the imagination a case of the government sticking its nose
> into art. The DOWNFALL of the NEA certainly IS a case of government
> sticking its nose into art.
>
> And Kevin, you point out all sorts of things which are/were wrong with the
> NEA grant system. Again, do we shoot ourself in the foot because the system
> had problems? I don't get it. And is it any surprise at all that the grant
> awards seemed to favor ceramic sculpture over pottery?? This is not a
> problem with the NEA, it is a problem with the art world. You are dredging
> up problems which exist throughout the art world, and blaming them on the NEA.
>
> Kevin also says:
> >Additionally, since at its zenith the NEA was awarding almost one million
> >dollars for indvidual grants in one funding cycle it could not help, by
> >its very nature, but to produce an undue influence on the field. In other
> >words, with that much money being awarded and the media coverage that
> >followed the nature of craft expressions could be influenced in a
> >significant way. Some might say this could be good. Others, like myself,
> >see some major problems with this "steering" power.
>
> Is this for real?? Magazines, newspapers, organizations, unions,
> corporations, etc. have always had this kind of steering power. You want to
> condemn the NEA for steering the direction of art by giving away money???
> Wow. When corporations fund art, 99% of the time we get innocuous
> traditional realism or geometric formalism. Don't get me wrong. I have no
> problems with Frank Stella, Sol Lewitt, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, Bridget
> Riley, etc. But who supports and encourages the art which really grapples
> with controveresial issues?
>
> Finally, an unsigned post says:
> >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?
>
> NO! NO! Of course we cannot trust them to care for culture. That's the
> whole point. That's why all the conservatives and fundamentalists have
> fought the NEA so aggressively. They WANT to be the conservators of
> American culture, and they cannot control the NEA. They want to condemn and
> restrict art which they see as challenging mainstream religious morality and
> "traditional family values. They want to spread ignorance and censorship.
>
> He/She goes on:
> >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.
>
> This is a little silly. I would very much like to see the NEA focus more on
> rural artists and art projects, but is it any surprise that the urban
> centers get most of the grants? The urban centers are where most new art
> appears.
>
> And:
> >D. Popular culture should not be confused for art --
>
> Huh?? Let's not get into the "low art/high art" debate. You are being
> elitist and classist. Don't presume to predict who will have the enduring
> influence. One of the healthiest things about 20th century art is the way
> it responds to popular culture. If allowed and encouraged to do so, perhaps
> more Americans will be won back into the fold.
>
> When the NEA is gone, especially with the contemporary climate of
> conservative and moderate political leanings, it will be a Hell of a long
> time before we see anything like it again, and history will show that during
> the intervening period there will be far less art which takes risks and
> challenges/illuminates the real problems of society. I still say that all
> the downside issues, all the problems do not amount to a hill of beans
> compared to the noble accomplishments and possibilities of the NEA.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
> Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801, fax 615/597-6803
> Appalachian Center for Crafts
> 1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
>
pjomjp[ on thu 19 jun 97
>They want to condemn and restrict art which they see as challenging >mainstream
Well, I'd urge you to be tolerant and consider that your position
towards "them" is essentially the same thing, but with an diametrically
opposed point of view. Censorship? Nah. "They" just want to refuse to
pay for things they don't like -- just like you do. This is not
censorship.
>I would very much like to see the NEA focus more on rural artists and >art proj
I sense a conflict of interest in this remark..... hasn't your
organization been at risk for some time?
>The urban centers are where most new art appears.
Is this to say that you're enduring a cltural vacuum there in Smithville
and that the whole shebang ought to be transferred to Nashville?
>Don't presume to predict who will have the enduring
>influence.
No-one suggested any such thing. The post gave examples of work which
has, so far anyway, endured. In the graphic arts, it could be that Holly
Hobbie window stickers will prevail in the end. I dunno -- and really
don't care.
>history will show that during the intervening period there will be far >less ar
Again, this depends on who is doing the defining. There are those who
believe that "homoerotic art" is a real social problem in and of itself.
Presently, they are holding sway. It's a drag being on the losing side,
to be sure. Don't whine. It detracts the energy you'll need to rise to
the top again.
KPP -- yanking Vince's chain
Karl P. Platt on fri 20 jun 97
>My argument to that is that Van Gogh never sold a painting.
So? One might argue that his work represents nothing more than the
ravings of a madman.
>I really don't see private dollars taking over so that a city can build >a publ
Hold on thar, pard. Some of these cities have ordinances which _oblige_
the expenditure of private dollars on art. I know a developer in LA who
is having fits with this -- fits. Between the art bureaucrats and people
who want to smear their ID all over his space, the cost of the
obligatory expenditure of building (his) building on his land adds up to
a lot more than 1%.
Karri Benedict on sun 22 jun 97
In answer to one post stating the business of government is to provide
for defense and law and order (to paraphrase) I say the business of
govenment in a democracy is whatever its citizens make of it.
Governments of the world have supported the arts throughout history,
mostly through direct patronage, as have religious institutions. In our
modern democracy I suppost this has translated into the NEA, with all
its problems and acheivements.
The current withdrawing of support of the NEA seems to be a result of
multiple factors-one being that it has become a political issue for
conservatives and another being that it is an easy target. The situation
is pervasive through all levels of our society, with art departments
shrinking in many public schools also as administrators look for ways to
cut the budget. Our culture tends to underestimate the intrinsic value
of art and worship the bottom line. We don't seem to be able or want to
perceive the added value that the practice of art in its various media
adds to nearly all consummable goods, in addition to just the increased
pleasantness of our everyday environments. Imagine a world with no art.
Or imagine what would happen if all artists decided to go on strike. No
new movies or fashion, all re-runs on TV (not necessarily a bad thing,
but could be boring) no new songs on the radio, magazine production
would grind to a halt. We would have to consume the same old products,
year in and year out. Perhaps "artists" have had a hand in creating
their own invisibility to the common man by wanting to keep what they do
separate from the art of mass culture. But the fact is that the constant
metamorphosis of mass culture is fueled by what is happening in the
"art" world.
Do the majority of American people really want to cut support for the
arts, or is it just a vocal minority who do. Our legislators seem eager
to jump on the band wagon of what they perceive to be the "popular
stand" on any issue. It is a fact that in a country where most of the
population just doesn't seem to care enough to vote, that the vocal
minorities often sieze the day. The other side of this coin is that an
opposing vocal minority has a better chance of successfully defending
their position. So however you feel on this issue, e-mail your
congressmen and senators.
Karri Benedict
Catherine Vojtas on mon 23 jun 97
At 02:07 PM 6/22/97 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Do the majority of American people really want to cut support for the
>arts, or is it just a vocal minority who do.
[snip]
>So however you feel on this issue, e-mail your congressmen and senators.
I wanted to point out some excellent online resources that can help you
keep abreast of Arts Advocacy as well as contact your local representatives:
American Arts Alliance
http://www.tmn.com/0h/Artswire/www/aaa/aaahome.html
---------------------------------------------------
"The mission of the American Arts Alliance is to be the principal advocate
for America's professional nonprofit arts organizations and their publics
in representing arts interests and advancing arts support before Congress
and other branches of the Federal government. "
VoteSmart Web
http://www.vote-smart.org/congress/votes/House/0642party.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
The VoteSmartWeb provides easy access to voting record and contact
information of elected federal officials, including the records of the
104th Congressional vote on HR 1977: Fiscal 1996 Interior Appropriations, a
move to reduce the 1996 funding appropriated for the National Endowment for
the Arts by $10 million. This move was defeated 179-227 on July 17, 1995.
---
Catherine Vojtas
ArtScape
http://www.artscape.com
| |
|
