Vince Pitelka on wed 16 apr 03
> into such shaky ground. If you impose severe censorship on publicly
funded
> art in order to avoid funding ANYONE (which is of course impossible), you
> really suck the soul out of the art, and out of the entire NEA structure.
That should have read "in order to avoid offending ANYONE . . . . . "
Sorry about that.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Alyss Dorese on wed 16 apr 03
Thanks, Vince, for saying what needs to be said and saying it so well.
Alyss
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Broken Art/NEA
> > The issue is the GOVERNMENT FUNDING of an item that is deliberately
> offensive
> > to some people's religious beliefs ........ one reason to be concerned
is
> > that the propaganda ministries of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia also
> funded
> > "art" that bashed certain groups for their race, religion and beliefs,
> etc.
>
> Bob -
> It does no good to engage in creative extrapolation that has nothing to do
> with the issue at hand. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany specifically
> mandated propogandistic art supporting their own belief structure. The
NEA
> has never done anything of the kind. The reality is that almost anything
> anyone does these days is going to offend SOMEONE'S religious beliefs.
> That's not much of an issue. I do agree that there have been a few
projects
> over the years that should not have been funded by the NEA, but this gets
> into such shaky ground. If you impose severe censorship on publicly
funded
> art in order to avoid funding ANYONE (which is of course impossible), you
> really suck the soul out of the art, and out of the entire NEA structure.
> That would be a huge mistake. Far better to support freedom of expression
> and risk occasionally offending someone. They can live with it, and it is
> certianly worth that risk in order to encourage a vital, innovative
artistic
> leading edge.
>
> Another tired bit of rhetoric that comes up repeatedly when people argue
> against the NEA is that all artists should be able to support themselves
> with their work, just like everyone else does. Bullshit. The government
> grants money for research in science, medicine, agriculture,
manufacturing,
> etc. So apparently all those scientists should be out there hitting the
> streets, seeking jobs in private industry, developing product lines,
> supporting themselves in the "real world," instead of "living on the
public
> dole" (what a ridiculous expression!).
>
> There are thousands of scientists, engineers, and computer programmers
doing
> research on government grant money, specifically to support risky
> leading-edge work and the resulting critically important discoveries. So
> why should art be any different? In fact, why shouldn't art be a much
> higher priority? Art is the soul of a culture.
>
> Also, when artists support themselves in the open marketplace, their work
is
> to some degree steered by the market place. That is a matter of survival.
> There's nothing wrong with that, but if that is the only venue for
artistic
> innovation and evolution, then not much innovation and evolution will take
> place.
>
> This really ought to be a non-issue. Goverment-supported competitive
> funding of the arts is an extremely good thing. An extraordinary amount
of
> great work has been done by artists and organizations who were the
> recipients of NEA and NEH funding. This work energizes and illuminates
our
> society and culture. That cannot ever be a bad thing.
>
> Are we so small-minded and short-sighted that a few bad funding choices
out
> of thousands of good ones can allow us to ruin such a good situation?
God,
> I hope not.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Technological University
> 1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
> Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
> 615/597-5376
> Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
> 615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Vince Pitelka on wed 16 apr 03
> The issue is the GOVERNMENT FUNDING of an item that is deliberately
offensive
> to some people's religious beliefs ........ one reason to be concerned is
> that the propaganda ministries of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia also
funded
> "art" that bashed certain groups for their race, religion and beliefs,
etc.
Bob -
It does no good to engage in creative extrapolation that has nothing to do
with the issue at hand. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany specifically
mandated propogandistic art supporting their own belief structure. The NEA
has never done anything of the kind. The reality is that almost anything
anyone does these days is going to offend SOMEONE'S religious beliefs.
That's not much of an issue. I do agree that there have been a few projects
over the years that should not have been funded by the NEA, but this gets
into such shaky ground. If you impose severe censorship on publicly funded
art in order to avoid funding ANYONE (which is of course impossible), you
really suck the soul out of the art, and out of the entire NEA structure.
That would be a huge mistake. Far better to support freedom of expression
and risk occasionally offending someone. They can live with it, and it is
certianly worth that risk in order to encourage a vital, innovative artistic
leading edge.
Another tired bit of rhetoric that comes up repeatedly when people argue
against the NEA is that all artists should be able to support themselves
with their work, just like everyone else does. Bullshit. The government
grants money for research in science, medicine, agriculture, manufacturing,
etc. So apparently all those scientists should be out there hitting the
streets, seeking jobs in private industry, developing product lines,
supporting themselves in the "real world," instead of "living on the public
dole" (what a ridiculous expression!).
There are thousands of scientists, engineers, and computer programmers doing
research on government grant money, specifically to support risky
leading-edge work and the resulting critically important discoveries. So
why should art be any different? In fact, why shouldn't art be a much
higher priority? Art is the soul of a culture.
Also, when artists support themselves in the open marketplace, their work is
to some degree steered by the market place. That is a matter of survival.
There's nothing wrong with that, but if that is the only venue for artistic
innovation and evolution, then not much innovation and evolution will take
place.
This really ought to be a non-issue. Goverment-supported competitive
funding of the arts is an extremely good thing. An extraordinary amount of
great work has been done by artists and organizations who were the
recipients of NEA and NEH funding. This work energizes and illuminates our
society and culture. That cannot ever be a bad thing.
Are we so small-minded and short-sighted that a few bad funding choices out
of thousands of good ones can allow us to ruin such a good situation? God,
I hope not.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Bobbruch1@AOL.COM on thu 17 apr 03
>>>>>Vince writes <<<<<extrapolation that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Soviet Russia
and Nazi Germany specifically mandated propogandistic art supporting their
own belief structure. The NEA has never done anything of the kind.
Vince, I am not saying that the NEA purposefully decided to bash a particular
religion, THIS TIME. But in a democracy, we should be sensitive to a
government agency being allowed to create propaganda that bashes a particular
group. And the NEA is after all an agency of the government. Hitler did not
take full control of the German government in one week, the terror was
implemented over the course of a decade. The time to stop a government
propaganda ministry in its tracks is DAY ONE. And if you think that people on
the far left aren't as racist and belligerent as those on the far right,
think again. It is just focused against different groups.
<<<<,The reality is that almost anything anyone does these days is going to
offend SOMEONE'S religious beliefs. That's not much of an issue. I do agree
that there have been a few projects over the years that should not have been
funded by the NEA, but this gets into such shaky ground.
There are many people who would support the right of people in hoods and
sheets to march or meet, and who will go to court to defend that right, who
are against the STATE of S. Carolina having a reference to the confederacy in
a flag on the statehouse grounds, and Georgia is dealing with that same issue
today. That issue is the difference between individual and state expression.
When the Klan marches it is seen as different from the state or federal
government's expression of support for the regime that fought to preserve
slavery. There is a material difference between the actions of the NEA and
the actions of any one particular gallery. Let the urinators and the blood
spillers do their handiwork in the private sector.
And let the NEA deal with their mistakes. Their attitude of circling the
wagons simply added fuel to the fire.
<<<<funding ANYONE (which is of course impossible), you really suck the soul out
of the art, and out of the entire NEA structure. That would be a huge
mistake.
You don't suck the soul out of art in general. Those people still have the
private sector as venue of expression. Someone just gave an example of the
process of getting selected for a public art project. If you don't like the
process, don't play in the game. There are other games. I would have a
strong objection, maybe just as strong as yours, if the art police started
attacking individual galleries. But if I want to play in the public domain, I
would EXPECT to have different constraints that I do working in my own
studio.
<<<< Far better to support freedom of expression and risk occasionally
offending someone. They can live with it, and it is certianly worth that risk
in order to encourage a vital, innovative artistic leading edge.
You seem to be assuming that the only way to have freedom of expression is to
have the NEA fund it. You might want to revisit Mel's post. Government
funding of my or your "great" idea isn't a right. It is a potential
opportunity. If that potential opportunity is not available, then the artist
should find some other opportunity. If those opportunities are not
available, isn't that too bad? Maybe the "artist" ought to then look at what
they are doing. In past generations, artists with breakthrough messages
didn't sit around waiting for government funding. They did the work and found
a way to survive.
<<repeatedly when people argue against the NEA is that all artists should be
able to support themselves with their work, just like everyone else does.
Bullshit.
Why not? You have some innovative processes and work. It probably hasn't
been easy for you to support that work over the years given the fact that
society doesn't always properly reward people for labor intensive work.
These other folks can get there the same way that you or many others on this
list have to do. You figure out a way and then do it. If they can't do that,
many they ought to reassess things and consider going back to school to come
up with a new career path, or get a part time job, as horrible as that may
sound. Plenty of people have had to make those decisions.
<<<<<agriculture, manufacturing, etc.
I believe that there is plenty of controversy in some of these areas as well.
<<<<streets, seeking jobs in private industry, developing product lines,
supporting themselves in the "real world," instead of "living on the public
dole" (what a ridiculous expression!).
I am not in one of those fields, and don't feel knowledgeable enough to
comment.
<<<doing
research on government grant money, specifically to support risky
leading-edge work and the resulting critically important discoveries. So why
should art be any different? In fact, why shouldn't art be a much higher
priority? Art is the soul of a culture.
If someone sent a proposal to "prove" that one racial group was inferior to
another, I would hope that the government wouldn't fund that.
<<<<work is
to some degree steered by the market place. That is a matter of survival.
There's nothing wrong with that, but if that is the only venue for artistic
innovation and evolution, then not much innovation and evolution will take
place.
Why not, it always did so in the past? How many of the various innovative
movements of the last 150 years were funded by the NEA?
<<<<funding of the arts is an extremely good thing. An extraordinary amount of
great work has been done by artists and organizations who were the recipients
of NEA and NEH funding. This work energizes and illuminates our society and
culture. That cannot ever be a bad thing.
You are right, it is a good thing. But that does not take the onus off the
NEA for self inspection from time to time. I believe that I said that the
real problem was not the selection of Soriano's work, but the reactions of
the NEA et al. to the critics. Just because you are doing good things
shouldn't exempt you from realizing that you are making mistakes and
assessing what to do if you make one. If that group cannot do it, then jmho,
either remove the decision makers or remove the group.
<<<out of thousands of good ones can allow us to ruin such a good situation?
God, I hope not. - Vince
I think "yes" if the bad choices are so extremely egregious as to trample the
rights of particular groups. The NEA should be allowed to make mistakes.
They should also be allowed to admit to them.
Bob
John Jensen on thu 17 apr 03
I've been out of town for a few days so I'm coming in on this one a bit
late. I agree with Vince wholeheartedly. And Janet Kaiser, too.
It is such a false argument to say that the government shouldn't spend
money on things we disapprove of. And it is disgusting to hear artists
say this because the amount of money is so pitifully small. I think the
government spent $5000 dollars of my taxes bailing out the Savings and
Loan Criminals. Janet points out the cost of the war. There are
thousands of huge government expenditures that I wouldn't choose to
support. What does the NEA get per year? I doubt it amounts to more
that $5. per taxpayer. Is it extortion to ask that from each of us? If
so then all taxes are extortion, and the whole concept of government
should be abolished.
The conservatives have set their gun sites on art and artists, hoping
to destroy us all; and so many of us play right into their hands by
fighting among ourselves.
And some of us who are so high and mighty about not receiving any
government support are ignoring or discounting a lot of reality.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
mudbug@toadhouse.com , http://www.toadhouse.com
Jeanie on thu 17 apr 03
Dear Vince, Please hang in there on this controversy. The stakes are
high. The only way we can integrate Mel's rugged individualism and
your[andother's] more contemporary vision is to continue to willfully
make ourselves vulnerable to the irritation of other people's opinions.
I think that is one of the definitions of community-a group of people
willing to risk the ire of people they value inorder that everyone can
become a tool in the great process of building something better...
Jeanie in Pennsylvania
Longtin, Jeff on thu 17 apr 03
I couldn't agree with you more Bob.
Why are we belaboring this point anyway do you suppose?
It's puzzling to be sure. We get Vince's point, does he think by repeating
it he will somehow "convince" us he's right. How strange!
Take care
Jeff Longtin
ps.Why is it I so seldom hear art theorists discuss what makes a good
pot...and yet I so often hear potters freely engage in deciding what is, and
is not, art?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bobbruch1@AOL.COM [mailto:Bobbruch1@AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:04 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Broken Art/NEA
>>>>>Vince writes <<<<<extrapolation that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Soviet Russia
and Nazi Germany specifically mandated propogandistic art supporting their
own belief structure. The NEA has never done anything of the kind.
Vince, I am not saying that the NEA purposefully decided to bash a
particular
religion, THIS TIME. But in a democracy, we should be sensitive to a
government agency being allowed to create propaganda that bashes a
particular
group. And the NEA is after all an agency of the government. Hitler did not
take full control of the German government in one week, the terror was
implemented over the course of a decade. The time to stop a government
propaganda ministry in its tracks is DAY ONE. And if you think that people
on
the far left aren't as racist and belligerent as those on the far right,
think again. It is just focused against different groups.
<<<<,The reality is that almost anything anyone does these days is going to
offend SOMEONE'S religious beliefs. That's not much of an issue. I do agree
that there have been a few projects over the years that should not have been
funded by the NEA, but this gets into such shaky ground.
There are many people who would support the right of people in hoods and
sheets to march or meet, and who will go to court to defend that right, who
are against the STATE of S. Carolina having a reference to the confederacy
in
a flag on the statehouse grounds, and Georgia is dealing with that same
issue
today. That issue is the difference between individual and state expression.
When the Klan marches it is seen as different from the state or federal
government's expression of support for the regime that fought to preserve
slavery. There is a material difference between the actions of the NEA and
the actions of any one particular gallery. Let the urinators and the blood
spillers do their handiwork in the private sector.
And let the NEA deal with their mistakes. Their attitude of circling the
wagons simply added fuel to the fire.
<<<<avoid
funding ANYONE (which is of course impossible), you really suck the soul out
of the art, and out of the entire NEA structure. That would be a huge
mistake.
You don't suck the soul out of art in general. Those people still have the
private sector as venue of expression. Someone just gave an example of the
process of getting selected for a public art project. If you don't like the
process, don't play in the game. There are other games. I would have a
strong objection, maybe just as strong as yours, if the art police started
attacking individual galleries. But if I want to play in the public domain,
I
would EXPECT to have different constraints that I do working in my own
studio.
<<<< Far better to support freedom of expression and risk occasionally
offending someone. They can live with it, and it is certianly worth that
risk
in order to encourage a vital, innovative artistic leading edge.
You seem to be assuming that the only way to have freedom of expression is
to
have the NEA fund it. You might want to revisit Mel's post. Government
funding of my or your "great" idea isn't a right. It is a potential
opportunity. If that potential opportunity is not available, then the
artist
should find some other opportunity. If those opportunities are not
available, isn't that too bad? Maybe the "artist" ought to then look at what
they are doing. In past generations, artists with breakthrough messages
didn't sit around waiting for government funding. They did the work and
found
a way to survive.
<<repeatedly when people argue against the NEA is that all artists should be
able to support themselves with their work, just like everyone else does.
Bullshit.
Why not? You have some innovative processes and work. It probably hasn't
been easy for you to support that work over the years given the fact that
society doesn't always properly reward people for labor intensive work.
These other folks can get there the same way that you or many others on this
list have to do. You figure out a way and then do it. If they can't do that,
many they ought to reassess things and consider going back to school to come
up with a new career path, or get a part time job, as horrible as that may
sound. Plenty of people have had to make those decisions.
<<<<<agriculture, manufacturing, etc.
I believe that there is plenty of controversy in some of these areas as
well.
<<<<streets, seeking jobs in private industry, developing product lines,
supporting themselves in the "real world," instead of "living on the public
dole" (what a ridiculous expression!).
I am not in one of those fields, and don't feel knowledgeable enough to
comment.
<<<doing
research on government grant money, specifically to support risky
leading-edge work and the resulting critically important discoveries. So
why
should art be any different? In fact, why shouldn't art be a much higher
priority? Art is the soul of a culture.
If someone sent a proposal to "prove" that one racial group was inferior to
another, I would hope that the government wouldn't fund that.
<<<<work is
to some degree steered by the market place. That is a matter of survival.
There's nothing wrong with that, but if that is the only venue for artistic
innovation and evolution, then not much innovation and evolution will take
place.
Why not, it always did so in the past? How many of the various innovative
movements of the last 150 years were funded by the NEA?
<<<<funding of the arts is an extremely good thing. An extraordinary amount of
great work has been done by artists and organizations who were the
recipients
of NEA and NEH funding. This work energizes and illuminates our society and
culture. That cannot ever be a bad thing.
You are right, it is a good thing. But that does not take the onus off the
NEA for self inspection from time to time. I believe that I said that the
real problem was not the selection of Soriano's work, but the reactions of
the NEA et al. to the critics. Just because you are doing good things
shouldn't exempt you from realizing that you are making mistakes and
assessing what to do if you make one. If that group cannot do it, then jmho,
either remove the decision makers or remove the group.
<<<out of thousands of good ones can allow us to ruin such a good situation?
God, I hope not. - Vince
I think "yes" if the bad choices are so extremely egregious as to trample
the
rights of particular groups. The NEA should be allowed to make mistakes.
They should also be allowed to admit to them.
Bob
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Lily Krakowski on thu 17 apr 03
John Jensen writes:
> The conservatives have set their gun sites on art and artists, hoping
> to destroy us all; and so many of us play right into their hands by
> fighting among ourselves.
> And some of us who are so high and mighty about not receiving any
> government support are ignoring or discounting a lot of reality.
Who exactly are these conservatives, and how do you define "conservative'?
What are they doing to "destroy us all" ? No, no, let's not just toss
phrases here. Kindly explain.
And who is being high and mighty about not getting taxpayers to support
them, and what is the reality being ignored?
Every time Ceramics Monthly and other clay magazines come out with "Workshop
Listings Issues" there are more and more workshops. At Barnes & Noble there
are racks of magazines on the arts and on the crafts. Many of these
magazines are new/young/recently launched. Galleries are cropping in places
no gallery was in before.
In nearby Utica the Munson Williams Proctor Museum has EXPANDED its teaching
program so that now it offers the first two years of Pratt Institute.
Where is this destruction?
Where are these conservatives? Who?
As to NEA. Let me ask you all this: there is someone someplace making
gripping installation art-- A huge pool full of rigatone, floating in tomato
sauce....There also is a GIANT meatball with an arrow through it.
And there is this someone else someplace else who makes nice birdhouses and
chairs and such out of willow branches...
Now if NEA is so broadminded, so in tune with artists who need money, so
eager to help, how come not one of us would bet on willow branch guy getting
the money, but would bet on the installation person getting it?
The "reality", and there never seems to be just one, appears to be that NEA
funds not "art" , not "artists" but the work of a certain elite that appeals
to their own elite. I am not being high and mighty, whatever that means, but
I read, and watch, and notice, and that is what I see and hear.It may not be
real. Ok. Prove it.
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....
John Jensen on thu 17 apr 03
Lili
Well. I much prefer letting such as Vince and Janet give the reasoned
well thought out arguments. I'd rather just shoot off my mouth with
irrational, thoughtless, gut reactions. But it seems I've jumped into
the muck so I'll try to make something out of it...Point for point if I
can.
1) Who exactly are these conservatives? I don't know exactly who they
are. I don't bother to define them. It's a generally accepted
generalization. In my mind they are the ones who wanted to pull the
funding of NPR, who were offended by Maplethorpe exhibit, who think "the
business of America is Business, Who say "America love it or leave it,"
who woke up the day after the election and started a smear campaign
against Bill and Hillary, who want to undo the social progress of the
last 100 years. I could go on but you probably get my drift.
2)Who are the high and mighty? You'll have to use your imagination:
But anyone who thinks they can make a living in this country without
giving any credit to the influence of government is full of **it. If
you sell your sell your teapots and platters and make a nice living
without getting any grants, more power to you; but those people who are
buying your teapots and platters are getting their money from a system
which is inextricably bound up with the government. None of us is an
economic, spiritual, or moral island.
3)As far as your points about evidences of more and more workshops,
magazines, and galleries being launched. I don't see what bearing that
has on anything.
Clearly you do, but I can't comment on it because it is meaningless to
me.
4)So where does this money come from in nearby Utica? What does that
mean, what is the significance of that.
5) NEA.... Really stupid to discuss a whole program in terms of a single
or even a few examples. For all I know I might find a huge pool of
rigatone, floating in tomato sauce, with a giant meatball with an arrow
through it exactly what I needed to experience to experience the
universe in all it's fullness and beauty. The guy with the willow
branches and birdhouses is probably already making a fortune and sending
his kids to college.
And anyway it isn't an either/or proposition. We are a vast, wealthy,
diverse society. We fund all kinds of things. We fund farmers,
industry, mathematicians, biology, astronomy, and more. As a society we
know that an investment in knowledge, research, culture, science, art,
music, and so forth pays off for us in the long run; not only
spiritually, aesthetically, morally, but also in a stronger and more
robust economy. The small amount of money which might go to NEA mainly
goes to pretty much mainstream sorts of things, I believe; though a
small portion does go to some pretty whacky projects. Probably not too
likely that the birdhouse maker would get any money and why should he or
she? Unless there was some overarching reason.
Like maybe the birdhouse maker was a dying breed, or conversely a
cutting edge birdhouse maker.
And the NEA money is a small amount. I'd rather see more money spent on
art I hate than to see the same money go into weapons research, for
example. I'm generally in favor of the space program, but I'd rather
see money go to support art I hate than to see that money go into the
space program.
I have devoted my life to art. Not out of any higher mission, it's
just what I happen to do. I've been on the receiving end of a few small
boosts from the government. I got a grant from the Catholic church for
an exhibit once. I've taught in institutions which were partially funded
by money from the government, as well as money from "conservatives," and
whoever else. But by and large I have been a pay as you go, pay your
own way sort of guy, and I have paid some pretty substantial amounts of
money into the government in the form of income taxes, property taxes
and you name it taxes. I'd like to have some say about how that money
gets spent, and I want some of it to go to support art. And even if I
didn't make a penny or pay a penny in taxes, as a citizen I have a right
to be represented in the government.There are realities and one of those
realities is that the art elite is going to have a big say in how that
money gets spent. I don't know what the alternative would be. I don't
accept the alternative of not spending it at all. I'm not a member of
the art elite, it's not likely that I ever will be. But I do actually
believe that they are not totally full of **it. They are an institution
of our culture, having evolved through history. I like to imagine that
increased funding would broaden the relevance of the elite.
6) I don't expect to nor will I even attempt to "prove" anything. I
read, watch, and notice.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery, www.toadhouse.com
Mert & Holly Kilpatrick on thu 17 apr 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jensen"
> If so then all taxes are extortion...
Hey, John, I think you're on to something there! Hold onto that concept!
> The conservatives have set their gun sites on art and artists, hoping
> to destroy us all.
Some of "us" are conservatives AND artists!
Holly
East Bangor, PA
Vince Pitelka on thu 17 apr 03
There have been some great posts on this subject, both pro and con. This is
a very constructive debate, but I don't want to post more than my share of
messages, and so I am not going to respond to all of the individual messages
that seemed to request a response from me. I don't have the time, even
though some of the requests were intelligent and worthwhile. But then some
of the requests were ridiculous and tiresome, citing the same stale
anti-NEA, anti-government funding rhetoric that has been spouted for
decades. It doesn't ring any truer now than it did 25 years ago.
I never said that the NEA was not flawed, but show me ANY government agency
that is not flawed. Remember, our government is run by politicians, who are
almost all severely flawed. Perhaps it is the reality of the human
condition. The structure of jurying and juror selection in the NEA is
faulty, and has led to the inbred perpetuation of fairly esoteric conceptual
art. But among the funded work there is a hell of a lot of very worthwhile
stuff, and I'd certainly rather have that than no govermnet funding of the
arts at all. I hope that the NEA can be reformed so as to be more equitable
and inclusive in art funding. I think that will happen with time, because
the whole national consciousness about art is changing. More and more
people are recognizing the insipid, vacuous qualities of high-production
"art factory" artists like Thomas Kincaid, and instead recognizing the
enduring magic of fine craftsmanship in exceptional utilitarian wares.
So, in the current foul-smelling crop of anti-NEA posts we still have the
same tired comments about obscene/pornographic/sacriligeous artwork. God,
give me a break already. As I have said before several times, those works
represent a tiny fraction of the art funded by the NEA. And if, out of the
thousands of funded works, a few examples offend people, SO WHAT. I mean,
WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL HERE?? Is it just a faction of small-minded busybodies
who believe in education by ignorance and censorship, and who don't have
much better to do with their time than look for scandal in government-funded
art so they can get really pissed off and make a big noise? Does that give
them a greater sense of personal fulfillment and validation? I guess so.
The problem is not that the NEA refused to grovel and apologize for funding
those works, because they had nothing to apologize for. The problem is that
those small-minded busybodies decided to make a very big deal out it in the
first place, when it would have been far better to just ignore it. That
applies to so many things in life. Why blow something so far out of
proportion when it never amounted to much to begin with?
I never said anything to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of obscene,
pornographic, or sacriligeous art, but I know that a healthy,
government-supported standard of freedom of expression in the arts is very
good for any culture/society. By supporting all sorts of worthwhile
artwork, including some that might seem obscene, pornographic, or
sacriligeous, we set a very high standard for freedom of expression. This
in turn encourages a healthy dialogue in the arts, where artists are not
afraid to write, speak, sing, paint, sculpt, dance, or whatever to get their
message across. I support and defend the artist's right to free expression,
and I know that in the broad picture it is constructive when artists deal
with these hard gritty issues in artwork, regardless of how the work affects
or offends some of us.
And no, I have never ever seen a single work of art that I thought shouldn't
have been created. In fact, it never even occured to me until someone
mentioned it in a post. The mere idea is absurd.
OF COURSE artists have to exist within the same standards of responsibility
and behavior as anyone else. That is very evident in our society. But
making art which illuminates issues of obscenity or pornography or sacrilige
is not irresponsible or antisocial behavior. And of course it is fully
supported and defended by the right to freedom of expression.
Of course there are always some artists who are are just trying to offend
and outrage. That is inevitable. Some artists are just angry. Some
artists express their anger and outrage in ways that are shocking and/or
offensive. And some people never outgrow the childhood inclination to defy
authority and contradict their elders. So ignore them and they will go
away. What's so hard about that? Is the problem simply that visual art is
VISUAL, and lots of people can look at all at once? Is that it? It
confronts us with its immediacy? I mean, no one makes such impassioned and
thoughtless condemnation of similar expression in the pages of a book! I
don't get it.
I have been studying and making art for most of my life. I lappreciate art
in all its extremes. There are things in life I know as fact: fine pots
enrich our lives, silica dust is deadly, carrots are good for you, gravity
is real, etc. And there are other things which are more subjective and
perhaps should not be stated as fact, and that applies to most concepts
about art. But I'll put the following into the former category: A healthy
government-supported freedom of expression in the arts, which tolerates even
the extremes in artistic expression, is a very good thing, and can only help
build a stronger, more resilient, more open-minded, more informed society.
No one could possibly say anything to convince me otherwise.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Vince Pitelka on fri 18 apr 03
> OK, so here's WHAT. At least the work offended, rather than inducing the
> viewer to roll over and play dead, go to sleep, or switch channels. If
> art is only about pleasing, agreeing, feeding the dominant cultural
> aesthetic, and making more of the same, I don't want it, need it, or
> support it. The notion that offensive work can be only appreciated by
> effete post-Modern deconstructionists is where the greatest reservoir of
> CRAP is to be found.
Right on Roger. Thanks for that. Here I have been focusing on the fact
that NEA has been funding a great deal of artwork in addition to the few
controversial examples, but the fact is that the controversial examples are
very worthwhile and successful, based on teh reaction they have elicited.
That is the key!
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Roger Korn on fri 18 apr 03
Vince Pitelka wrote:
>... And if, out of the
>thousands of funded works, a few examples offend people, SO WHAT. ...
>- Vince
>
>
>
OK, so here's WHAT. At least the work offended, rather than inducing the
viewer to roll over and play dead, go to sleep, or switch channels. If
art is only about pleasing, agreeing, feeding the dominant cultural
aesthetic, and making more of the same, I don't want it, need it, or
support it. The notion that offensive work can be only appreciated by
effete post-Modern deconstructionists is where the greatest reservoir of
CRAP is to be found.
I can ask much from art, but the only thing I can demand is that it not
bore me.
Roger
--
Roger Korn
McKay Creek Ceramics
In AZ: PO Box 463
4215 Culpepper Ranch Rd
Rimrock, AZ 86335
928-567-5699 <-
In OR: PO Box 436
31330 NW Pacific Ave.
North Plains, OR 97133
503-647-5464
Lily Krakowski on fri 18 apr 03
Dear John:
Ok. I'm a big girl and I can deal with that. You prefer to shoot of your
mouth (your term) rather than thinking. Ok. You accept a "generally
accepted generalization", something which in my circle is called bigotry.
If I understand you, you consider conservatives to be people who do not
understand why NPR needs taxpayer support to play Mozart, while Pop and Rock
stations sell commercials. As to the Clintons: WHAT smear campaign? Both
of them made headlines with what they themselves did. That was not a smear
campaign, John, that was the evening news!
Tell me: if you like spinach does that make everyone who does not a
conservative?
As to the high and mighty. No. I refuse to use my imagination. Sorry. You
used the phrase. You tell me. That in a country with a government everyone
is touched by government is a truism. Duh! Are you going to tell me that
when someone comes to my house to buy a teapot, in a car which is licensed,
on which she paid taxes, via a public road, that makes her high and mighty?
Or me?
You said these "conservatives" are out to destroy art and artists. In
citing workshops and magazines and their wonderful rich proliferation I was
simply saying--as I was with the expansion of the Munson Williams Proctor
educational program--that art and artists are doing extremely well. No sign
of destruction.
As to my birdhouse maker vs the installation guy. Isn't it ducking the
question to say the birdhouse maker probably makes a lot of money? My
question was: is a small, unknown folk artist as likely to get NEA grants
as a cutting edge protege of the inner circle?
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com
Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....
Joanna Jorgensen on fri 18 apr 03
Vince et al,
The keywords in you last post are " supporting all sorts of worthwhile
artwork". Art by its nature is subjective and what I may see as
worthwhile or not worthwhile surely does not match what you deem
worthwhile.
I have spent many an hour in museums looking at some of the most
beautiful things our civilization has created, and some things I look at
and think what idiot put that here....
I am a conservative, in my own definition of that word. Although I don't
think that matches what has become the standard definition.
From my conservative take on this I feel that art should be funded
especially in schools because it is as vital to our society as math and
science. It dismays me to think that a non- funding of the arts has
become equated with conservative values. But look at it this way, as I
fight against what has become accepted as the "allowable" or "benign"
smut and garbage that permeates everything that my children see and hear
and struggle to explain why that is not acceptable in our home, I should
have the freedom to choose what is worthwhile and what is not.
I may deem that a certain rapper is not worthwhile "art" even though the
community at large says it deserves an award. I choose not to buy it,
not to let the children bring it in the house. I make my stand by not
supporting it. That's my vote. You can vote as you choose with your hard
earned money. I will defend your right to buy what you choose
vehemently.
With the current way the NEA does things my vote on what I deem
worthwhile is gone. They decide for me, and that goes against every
democratic freedom I hold dear. I am not a "busy-body", I don't search
these things out to protest against. I do believe that the NEA has gone
so far off the deep end that those things that I would gladly turn over
my tax dollars get overlooked. The NEA has lost touch with the taxpayers
that fund them. The NEA has forgotten that they are spending our money
and the responsibility is then to us, so have most of the politicians.
Gallery owners and private exhibitions do not have that responsibility,
they don't have my blank check. They are the resource for those wanting
to vote for the obscene and some things that are just plain stupid.
I don't believe in doing away with the NEA or their funding, but I do
think they need a reality check.
Sorry so long winded today.
Joanna Jorgensen
Coconut Creek, FL
John Jensen on fri 18 apr 03
Lili;
I think you have stepped into a realm of name calling by calling me a
bigot. I've tried to avoid widening this into a discussion of politics
in general, which would be inappropriate in this venue and pointless
anyway. If you can't take my comments in a civilized way, then take
them anyway you want.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
mudbug@toadhouse.com , http://www.toadhouse.com
Lily Krakowski on fri 18 apr 03
Oh, no you don't! I did not call you a bigot. You said you accepted
generally accepted generalizations, to which I said that in my circle that
is called bigotry. That is not remotely calling you a bigot.
However. You remind me of a cat who is too far up the tree, and cannot get
down, so just hisses and hisses.
Enjoy. It may be lonesome up there, but the view is great.
Meanwhile I am dropping the whole things before the Mediator bops me on the
head.
John Jensen writes:
> Lili;
> I think you have stepped into a realm of name calling by calling me a
> bigot. I've tried to avoid widening this into a discussion of politics
> in general, which would be inappropriate in this venue and pointless
> anyway. If you can't take my comments in a civilized way, then take
> them anyway you want.
>
>
>
> John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
> mudbug@toadhouse.com , http://www.toadhouse.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....
Judith Miller on fri 18 apr 03
It often seems to me that the most vociferous anti-tax, anti-entitlement people I know are just as happy as I am to use highways, not be in danger of getting polio or TB, and use the internet. None of which are possible without public funding at one stage or another. Does the NEA fund ugly art? I'm sure it does. Do I think the same art is ugly that you do? Probably not. I learned from my (Swedish immigrant) grandfather to be proud to pay taxes to be part of civil society. I'm glad the NEA exists and it seems more sensible for artists to try to get on the board to influence spending, if that is your need, than to toss the whole thing out because of a few ugly things. You should hear some of the hymns we struggle through in church here! But we keep singing.--Judy in springy Idaho
Earl Brunner on fri 18 apr 03
John part of the trouble is that (and I'm speaking in generalities here)
conservatives and liberals (for want of a better description) often use
the same words, but mean different things. I read Lili's words and
thought to myself, "you go girl!" because I tend to agree with most of
what she said. I didn't find it personal or offensive. In fact I'm a
little surprised that you did. But then, that would be my whole point.
Someone who leans toward the conservative end has their hackles raised
by things that often surprise the liberal person saying them, because
they take it for granted "their way". And the same applies in reverse.
A conservative doesn't think there WAS a smear campaign against Clinton.
A conservative thinks that there IS/WAS a smear campaign against Bush.
Different points of view.
We say what to ourselves seems perfectly harmless and the other side is
offended.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of John Jensen
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:25 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Broken Art/NEA
Lili;
I think you have stepped into a realm of name calling by calling me a
bigot. I've tried to avoid widening this into a discussion of politics
in general, which would be inappropriate in this venue and pointless
anyway. If you can't take my comments in a civilized way, then take
them anyway you want.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
mudbug@toadhouse.com , http://www.toadhouse.com
________________________________________________________________________
______
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
John Jensen on fri 18 apr 03
Lili:
Well, that's good. I'm glad you didn't call me a bigot. Though I guess
birds of a feather flock around don't necessarily have to agree, those
in your circle would have so called me.
I do feel like I've gone up a tree and don't want to go down...I didn't
really want to be up here in the first place, but my big mouth got me
here. I don't think I'm hissing though, merely doing my best to clearly
express my point of view.
And Oh no you don't I dropped it first! When I said I didn't think this
was the appropriate venue for this wide ranging political discussion.
But while I'm here let me say you asked me to define which
conservatives I was talking about. And I said I was using a commonly
accepted generalization. Conservatives know who they are as do
anarchists, progressives, liberals, and so forth. In my circles no one
calls that bigotry, we just call that calling on a common language.
Lee Love on fri 18 apr 03
Don't let the conservative rightwing fool you. They are not against
spending goverrnment money, they are just against spending money on things they
don't like. Million dollar cruise missles? How many? No problemo. At
the height of spending on the NEA, we spent more on military marching bands than
we did on it.
We have to have bake sales to fund our public schools. As
Thomas Jeffereson said, democracy can only function with an educated citizenry.
The powers that be want a dumb citizenry. If they don't know better, they can
be led like sheep.
A society can be known by the way it spends its money. In the last 25
years, we've been brainwashed into thinking selfishness is a desired character
trait.
Check this out. First program on this Real Audio file, from It is
from , To The Best of Our Knowledge, with Jim Fleming. It is related to Dr.
Martin Seligman's book, _Autentic Happiness_.
http://broadcast.uwex.edu:8080/ramgen/wpr/bok/bok020915b.rm
Here is a quote from the intro to the program:
" Common sense, both about about depression and most importantly about
happiness and all the positive things in life turns out to be way off the mark.
Science is telling us some counter-intuitive things about the nature of
happiness."
Um ein tadelloses Mitglied einer
Schafherde sein zu koennen, muss
man vor allem ein Schaf sein.
In order to be a perfect
member of a herd of sheep,
One must be above all, a Sheep.
-Albert Einstein
--
Lee In Mashiko Ikiru@hachiko.com
.
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the
difference.
If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a
difference."
~~Bernard Leach~~
(As told to Dean Schwarz)
Bobbruch1@AOL.COM on sun 20 apr 03
<<<<<<<<<<<<the fact that NEA has been funding a great deal of artwork in addition to the
few controversial examples, but the fact is that the controversial examples
are very worthwhile and SUCCESSFUL, based on the reaction they have elicited.
That is the key! Best wishes - - Vince
I believe that Vince is correct, Sorriano and the person in Minneapolis that
Mel mentioned were VERY successful, based on the reactions. But to determine
whether or not the NEA was successful, one needs to examine the criteria of
"success" for the organization separate from that of the artists. If the
NEA's goal was to skirt the boundaries of closing down the organization, then
they were indeed successful. I guess I hope that this wasn't their goal. If
it was not their goal, and they almost succeeded in closing down the shop,
then it is hard to see why they would be considered successful.
I had a teacher in grad school who had been at the NEA at the time and I
asked what went on. The comment I got was that they (NEA) didn't care if
congress shut them down, they were going to do things their way, and if the
organization disappeared, well that's to bad. They were not going to
compromise. Now, that is my interpretation of only person's comments. My
response was, "who elected you to make that decision? Did 5000 or 10000 or
25000 artists across the country vote your group into office? Whose interests
were you representing? What knowledge and interaction do have with your
artistic constituency?" These were bureaucrats, not the elected
representatives of groups like this. On the state level, it is completely
different. In my state, the arts council people make themselves available and
meet artists and gallery managers on a consistent basis. They appear to
really to care about the individual artist and project.
Also, I don't see why somebody caught making what should be easy to see as an
obvious error in judgment can't simply admit the mistake and make the
statement that it won't happen again and then expect to move on. I think the
NEA deserves some slack on Mapplethorpe and Soriano. Both are significantly
talented and their work covers a wide range of material, some of which is
infinitely more provocative than others. It would be easy for an arts council
to give a talented person like Sorriano $$$$ to put together a body of work
without knowing what was going to appear in any given object. And I suppose
you could argue that micro managing the project is a form of censorship.
The issue that Mel mentioned in Minnesota seems to be another matter,
assuming that the true nature of the project was actually disclosed to the
local funder. I don't see anything wrong with someone admitting to problems
with what had gone on ....... after all, if one cannot admit to a mistake,
how is that error going to be rectified in the future.
Bob Bruch
| |
|
