Congress Spending tax payer money.

Well TL if we only discuss those things that our discussion here will change...Im pretty sure the forum would disappear. Talking about issues here, doesnt do anything to address the issues.

The poopy guy I mentioned is only one, I can easily list a dozen and find a list of hundreds of equally "valuable" artists that have received money from the NEA in the last decade.

I didn't bring up the school art programs, just addressed it as a seperate issue. My original post and the Poll deals only with programs like the NEA.

[WillowIX]

I would have liked one more option in that poll MagiK. something along the lines of, "Yes, but..."

Yes I do believe that governmental funding of arts is a good thing. But, like in every spending, there must be an element of control. Why not borrow this element from the scientific niche? Send in an application, have it reviewed and then meet up with a board and argue your case. If the art in question is deemed to be appreciated by the public then funding is approved. Of course this would be hard to implement, but you might just loose the worst examples by this method.

[Masklinn]

Your own words seem to make it clear that governments don't need to rob the citizens to subsidize artists....You said it your self "Art has always been, and will always be, a necessary part of humanity" If that is the case, then Art won't die without the government redistributing wealth....

Neanderthal men only needed a bit of mud and they didnt have to buy it. Nowadays you can't do anything without money. Art has changed and became more complex and more expensive. And art is still often not very lucrative. If government don't help, who will ? Sometimes you can find rich patrons (hope it's the right word - not sure), but sometimes you can't.

One thing to add is that a governement is here to take care of its citizen's hapiness. Art is a part of it.

You should be very glad to live in a country that actually helps artists.

Originally posted by Masklinn: [Neanderthal men only needed a bit of mud and they didnt have to buy it. Nowadays you can't do anything without money. Art has changed and became more complex and more expensive. And art is still often not very lucrative. If government don't help, who will ? Sometimes you can find rich patrons (hope it's the right word - not sure), but sometimes you can't. In our western capitalisitc society you can make money doing nearly anyting, all you have to do is make it appealing to the public..if the masses don't like your work, better change it or starve...or better yet, get a job and support yourself, and invest your own money in your art, rather than take someone elses money to support you while you search for your muse. One thing to add is that a governement is here to take care of its citizen's hapiness. Art is a part of it. Actually this is not the function of the US government. It may be written into the French governments responsibility to keep the people happy, but here, government is supposed to be a very limited thing with very limited powers of taxation and control....here the idea of government is that the people are supposed to take care of themselves and to control the government. It was a Unique form of government when it was formed a little over two hundred years ago. You should be very glad to live in a country that actually helps artists.

I would be more glad to live in a country that didn't take quite so much of my money from me against my will. I bet those artists would like that too.

Originally posted by WillowIX: I would have liked one more option in that poll MagiK. something along the lines of, "Yes, but..." Yes I do believe that governmental funding of arts is a good thing. But, like in every spending, there must be an element of control. Why not borrow this element from the scientific niche? Send in an application, have it reviewed and then meet up with a board and argue your case. If the art in question is deemed to be appreciated by the public then funding is approved. Of course this would be hard to implement, but you might just loose the worst examples by this method.

Willow that would never work, because then you wouldhave people declaring censorship...cant have that here...better to make the artists get jobs and paint or whatever in their spare time.....quite a few artists do just that...and some even make quite a good living this way.....In the end at best the government subsidy is propping up marginal talent at best. As TL pointed out, there isn't that much money devoted to it so the vast amount of art must be supporting itself.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: Willow that would never work, because then you wouldhave people declaring censorship...cant have that here...better to make the artists get jobs and paint or whatever in their spare time.....quite a few artists do just that...and some even make quite a good living this way.....In the end at best the government subsidy is propping up marginal talent at best. As TL pointed out, there isn't that much money devoted to it so the vast amount of art must be supporting itself.

I know it wouldn´t work MagiK. But wouldn´t it be great if it did? But censorship already exists.

Still I don´t believe it is censorship. If you don´t get the funding you want, no one is telling you you can´t do it. They only tell you you have to get the funding by your own means, i.e. get a job. No one will be forbidden to show a piece of art. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: MagiK, the subject if this thread is hilarious. I don´t know if you thought of it while posting the poll but "Congress spending tax dollars". Isn´t that what they are there for? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[ 03-13-2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

There are those Willow who would argue that denial of funding is a form of censorship [img]smile.gif[/img] But I understand what you mean. I am all for Government funding museums and galleries, I am just against them funding artists.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Masklinn: Neanderthal men only needed a bit of mud and they didnt have to buy it. Nowadays you can't do anything without money. Art has changed and became more complex and more expensive. And art is still often not very lucrative. If government don't help, who will ? Sometimes you can find rich patrons (hope it's the right word - not sure), but sometimes you can't. In our western capitalisitc society you can make money doing nearly anyting, all you have to do is make it appealing to the public..if the masses don't like your work, better change it or starve...or better yet, get a job and support yourself, and invest your own money in your art, rather than take someone elses money to support you while you search for your muse.

[/QUOTE]It ain't easy to make money for NPR. While Brittney Spears may sell Mozart doesn't, particularly because he's not copyrighted as is free to all. That means if we would like our children's children to know of Mozart, and other more obscure artists that are really better examples than Mozart is, we need to give just a little economic boost to symphonies, etc.

One thing to add is that a governement is here to take care of its citizen's hapiness. Art is a part of it. Actually this is not the function of the US government. It may be written into the French governments responsibility to keep the people happy, but here, government is supposed to be a very limited thing with very limited powers of taxation and control....here the idea of government is that the people are supposed to take care of themselves and to control the government. It was a Unique form of government when it was formed a little over two hundred years ago.

But, if the government doesn't actually improve our lives, we would not have created it and we would not maintain it - not willingly anyway.

You should be very glad to live in a country that actually helps artists.I would be more glad to live in a country that didn't take quite so much of my money from me against my will. I bet those artists would like that too.

No one wants to pay too much in taxes. I owe $4K on April 15, and it burns me [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] That said, I still think the arts are essential and one of the few good uses of tax dollars. I'd rather spend tax money there than funding scientific research on Frankenfoods or subsidizing drilling in Alaska. Speaking of which: you always support drilling in Alaska, but I never once hear you take this gripe you have with tax spending and apply it to the *hundreds of millions* Congress will spend subsidizing BigOil operations there. Hypocritical, no?

[ 03-13-2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: There are those Willow who would argue that denial of funding is a form of censorship [img]smile.gif[/img] But I understand what you mean. I am all for Government funding museums and galleries, I am just against them funding artists.

And some artists would be glad to beat me up for suggesting governmenatl control over governmental funding. LOL. Funding only museums would probably not benefit artists though. It would be interesting of my idea was to be discussed in your congress though.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Speaking of which: you always support drilling in Alaska, but I never once hear you take this gripe you have with tax spending and apply it to the *hundreds of millions* Congress will spend subsidizing BigOil operations there. Hypocritical, no?

But, Corporate Welfare = Good and Art Welfare = Bad.

Really though, NEA funding costs about 40-50 cents per taxpayer last I heard. So tell ya what. If I can withhold the portion of my taxes that goes to corporate welfare, you can withhold the portion that goes to the NEA [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-13-2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]