NPR and PBS have become weak willed sycophants, to the right wing terrorist American Taliban, in order to garner pennies on the dollar of previous public funding levels. If they abandon the right and stick to the left I believe we can and will support them through non tax deductible donations and be proud of ourselves, once again. But, I can only speak for myself. The rest is conjecture, not yet fact.
" I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb, and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
There is nothing racist their. Not even bigoted in my opinion... He expressed how he feels when he sees something.
George,
That's not true. He expressed a personal opinion and as a commentator, that was part of his job. He was fired for not being politically correct.
But Juan Williams is not the issue. NPR and PBS are private corporations and can hire and fire who they want.
But since they are private, why should my tax money go to them? This is just another example of corporate welfare.
Sara,
I'm sure when children come into Peter's household, they will not be permitted to watch Elmo. His children will never be permitted to partake of government welfare and indoctrination.
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in White Anglo garb, and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as White Anglos, I get worried. I get nervous."
When I see gimme caps and a Skoal ring on the back pocket I get nervous too. I'm nervous I might kick them in the ass. Just my personal opinion. Unfund them, they won't go away. The right wing just won't have a say.
Bea,
If good old Elmo lost his government funding, and had to get advertising dollars like all other network shows, there would be a line a mile long to sign him up. He and his buddies are some of the most popular things on TV. Elmo is not going away.
And Bea, PBS has some great shows that I love. This Old House, The New Yankee Workshop, The Woodwrights Shop (I think), Simply Ming... I grew up watching The Frugal Gourmet and Bob Ross. But the country needs the money for other things, like paying the bills Obama has put before us.
In the days of its inception, there were not many choices, now their are thousands. And I am sure each of the shows I mentioned will immediately be picked up.
And I used to have a Snuffy stuffed animal and my great uncle dressed as big bird for the annual Independence Day parade at Sky Line campgrounds near Attica. But I do hate Elmo. Grover is much better, especially as a waiter.
Austin City Limits already sold out to "the Man" Tickets at the new facility in the fancy ass Downtown Hotel theater are up to $150 instead of free, and no free beer. The good old days are gone but luckily I got my fill plus some before they disappeared. The Martini crowd are in control now.
I agree about Grover. I am a fan myself. My children, God bless them, are part of the Elmo generation. I have no doubt that the shows will be picked up. Just a strange thought that PBS wouldn't be there anymore. Either way it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. :)
I rarely if ever watch broadcast television. Thirty-forty years ago, when I did; I watched PBS quite regularly. Frontline was one of the programs I looked forward to. Unlike ABC-NBC-CBS, PBS did not spend 20 minutes out of each 60, trying to sell me something. Unlike ABC-NBC-CBS, I usually didn't feel short-changed after watching a program on PBS.
Upon switching from antenna to DirecTV/USSB in the mid-90s, my television diet was primarily uncut, uninterrupted movies. I also watched Discovery Channel- before the producers decided to embrace pseudoscience, angels and Bible-centrism.
Like so many things, DTV became popular, very expensive, very commercial and insipid. ...Just lost another channel (first, AMC, now IFC) to MTV syndrome.
I anxiously await the next intelligent option for home entertainment. (Aside from books.)
I simply cannot understand why I am forced, through taxation, to help support PBS and NPR. Please add the NEA and put it at the top of the list.
I don't watch PBS or listen to NPR. They do not offer programming that interests me. And I resent paying for them. If they offered a product that people choosed to watch/listen to, fine! Let those that want the product PAY for the product. I don't expect other taxpayers to fund The Batavian just because I want to read it.
As far as Juan Williams goes, Peter and John nailed - his opinion was not acceptable to the PC crowd. Then, only after public outcry arose and threatened funding cuts to NPR was the person that fired him fired.
Even more aggravating is public funding of the radically liberal NEA. I find "art" depicting Jesus soaked in urine to be revolting and indescribably offensive. And the tax paying, hard working American is forced to support this, yet privately funded nativity scenes are said to be offensive and banned from public property - and prayer banned from schools.
There is good programming on PBS, I can't speak for NPR because I don't listen to it, but these are unprecedented fiscal times and if things need to be cut, then cut that which is subjective (i.e. arts and entertainment). That which is of substantial quality and demand will survive in the open market, that which is not will rightfully go away, or be supported by some deep private pockets who feel it neccessary to keep. Washington keeps comparing itself to the average American household and how it should be budgeted during tight times, well most Americans when faced with food and shelter or movies and entertainment, would take the food and shelter...again I say most. Time for Washington to make the tough choices.
"All ART need encouragement and monetary support to survive.
Art is who we are. It is about who we are going to be. Art is what makes us human and helps us recognize our own humanity. And that is slipping away. Art makes us civilized and any monetary support to protect that is a good thing.
When you study history you study the art to see how civilized that culture could have been and when the future archaeologist study our buried treasures they will find melted and broken CDs because they won't be much art to find.*"
Oh wait, you also want to eliminate the history department. You didn't mention museums or libraries. Should they be off the list too?
Bea, are you saying that public funds SHOULD be used to publicize, promote, and display "art" as I described above? Or the virgin Mary using sex toys? Feces replacing the stars on the American flag? All in the name of art.
If a prayer at a school football game offends ONE person, it is subsequently banned. Folks in apartments are forced to remove flags from their windows because some wacko complains. Schools are sued for asking students to stand for the pledge of allegiance to the country in which they live.
And you are saying that forcing me to pay for things I abhor is justified?
I truly, truly, do not understand such thinking. Things that are funded by tax money and deeply offend the majority are good, and things that supposedly offend a very few that cost the taxpayer NOTHING are bad?
I know you were responding to the post above yours.
I have to reply to what you posted though. Specifically the part about future archaeologist only finding melted an broken cd's. I disagree with this. There are many great artist out there right now making what they consider to be art.
Yes, let's not fund anything arty, intellectual or provocative. In the distant future, when archeologists paw over the remains of the 21st Century; they can debate as to whether meteor or nuclear war caused all trace of human ingenuity to be extinguished from our era. Just, please, someone securely encapsulate pictures of Britney, Lindsay, Charlie and Paris so Historians (assuming they might be funded again) can discern that which we found truly relevant.
Bob, the offensive art you cited - the so-called 'Piss Christ' - was created in 1987. It was the source of a massive conservative backlash in the late 1980s that led to major changes at the NEA. Specifically, they ceased all individual artist grants and generally took on funding State or local art councils and translation projects. If you are perhaps looking to maintain a more contemporary outrage (as opposed to the ones that have already whipped to death over the course of twenty years), I suggest being outraged at the NEA's 'Shakespeare in America's Communities' program. The NEA has the GALL to fund a Shakespearean theater troupe that travels across America to small towns that would otherwise never get to experience Shakespeare as his work was meant to be experienced.
Jeremiah,
Yes, there are people creating magnificent works. Where will they be displayed? Who will be privileged to see, read or hear them?
Is the key word "privileged"? Should we make the arts the sole possession of the elite? If so, then we have gone backward a few centuries and reverted to the dark ages.
Sadly, the only 'art' Bob can identify is (in my opinion) worthless. There are books, paintings, sculpture and musical scores that should be celebrated and wouldn't be with us without grants.
This is a slippery slope. Art is subjective. The subject matter that Bob and I consider inappropriate may have innovative techniques (I'd have a difficult time finding what they are).
Even if there was no public funding, that offensive art work would be financed by someone who felt the artist had promise. It would still be with us. It still would end up hanging in a museum or gallery, funded in part by private and public grants.
To be honest, I've never seen the artwork that Bob mentioned. I've heard about them for many years, it has been the banner cry by those who want to do away with the NEA for a long time. It just isn't something I care to spend time perusing. That is my personal choice.
I find it difficult to believe that the funding by the NEA is all going to the type of art that Bob mentions:
"In most areas, funding is limited to organizations. (Direct awards to individuals are made only through Literature Fellowships, NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships, NEA Opera Honors, and NEA National Heritage Fellowships in the Folk & Traditional Arts.)
Artist Communities
Arts Education
Dance
Design
Folk & Traditional Arts
Literature
Local Arts Agencies
Media Arts
Museums
Music
Musical Theater
Opera
Presenting
State and Regional
Theater
Visual Arts http://www.nea.gov/Grants/apply/index.html
The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the government is not required to subsidize artistic expression with public funds. But the Court has also found that once it does decide to provide funds for arts programs, the government cannot withdraw that funding no matter the content.
In other words, all or nothing. I'd prefer nothing.
Bea, as usual, you fail to address the questions posed. You, instead, choose to take my words out of context and refer to me in the 3rd person. So much for constructive debate.
CM, as is your standard, you infer that I am stating things that I am not. Let me put it words you may understand: I am firmly opposed to money I earn being taken from me to fund pornography, anti-Christian messages, and the like. I do NOT ask you to fund me or anyone else espousing my views. I resent your attempts to stifle me whenever I exercise my right to free speech whether it be through public prayer, voicing my conservative views, or simply disagreeing with the left's perspective.
You are blinded by your liberal arrogance and quasi-intellectualism.
Wow, Bob, calm down.
I believe I did refer to you, "This is a slippery slope. Art is subjective. The subject matter that Bob and I consider inappropriate may have innovative techniques (I'd have a difficult time finding what they are).".
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? No one is arguing that the 'art work' and I use the term loosely, isn't offensive.
My concern with the 'all or nothing' concept is that too many good, talented, creative people will never get the chance to use their skills due to lack of finances.
You prefer nothing. That is your choice.
Bea writes "My concern with the 'all or nothing' concept is that too many good, talented, creative people will never get the chance to use their skills due to lack of finances." For hundreds of years good, talented, and creative people have used their skills to create, invent, and produce incredible things. They then took those things and introduced them to other people and when they agreed that they were truly valuable, other people paid for them. Sometimes, lots of people thought those things were valuable and those creative people became very wealthy. Sometimes, however, the creative people found that their stuff didn't really have a broad appeal so they either came up with different/better stuff or found a different vocation. Somewhere along the line, government do-gooders saw fit to subsidize creative people whose stuff really didn't have that much appeal, called it cultural enlightenment, and it became yet another tax payer funded entitlement that we no longer can or should afford. However, we all know what happens when we try to take an entitlement away, suddenly the common sense budget balancers become ugly, unrefined, barbarians who want to do away with everything that is right and good.
In times when the primary government in much of Europe was the Church, the Church -- which levied a sort of tax on the people to enrich itself -- commissioned art.
In feudal times, when the upper classes controlled the money and took care of what we would consider even essential government services today (police protection, for example, and roads), they acted as patrons for art. So, in a way, the people paid for art, even if they didn't like it.
Throughout history, there were all kinds of methods for funding art that amounted to subsidies for artists.
And many artists who we now consider masters likely didn't make much of a living off their work while they were alive.
On one hand, a system whereby local art councils help identify worthy artists for recognition makes a good amount of sense. In such a system, some merit for assistance is involved.
Typically, however, these grants aren't sufficient for an artist to make a living off their work ... often the grants go to the cost of materials or promoting a showing.
Local art is exceptionally enriching and important to a community, so local groups identifying worthy artists seems like something worthwhile to at least tolerate.
There are certainly issues with national funding of arts that take on a whole different meaning to the question, but on at least a local level, it doesn't take us far away from the centuries-old way of subsidizing art for the sake of the community.
Sounds great in a time when municipalities and governments are flush with cash. Not the case anymore, somethings have to get cut loose. That which the public demands remain, they will pay for. Drastic times call for drastic measures. It is that simple. Besides, you posed the question to begin with and it pertained to NPR and PBS. They are not local.
Jeff, no one has called anyone ugly, unrefined barbarians.
We are going around in circles. For the record, I have not made this political. I can't believe that the only groups applying for grants are all from one affiliation.
You, and others, do not want to fund the arts. I understand that. Others, see a benefit in encouraging and providing grants to those blessed with exceptional talent.
Yes, some cream will rise to the top regardless of funding. Should their works be displayed, or heard only in venues that are not funded, in part, by public grants?
I wonder if the Batavia-Bayou Cross Cultural Connection, taking place at GCC today, had any public funding?
A portion of your tax money goes to Genesee Country Village in Mumford. Should that be shut down because they get funding for educational programs?
How far should we go to close anything that receives grant money?
Fort Niagra, many museums, and entities like Go Art receive funding. Should they all go?
Bea, the short answer to all your questions is...in this economic climate, yes. States, yes entire states, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Our national debt to GDP ratio is actually worse than in the Great Depression. This is not a drill, we are in serious economic trouble and VERY tough choices need to be made. I am not politicizing this. If eliminating programs that fund the arts, if taking large chunks out of entitlement programs, if making unprecedented sacrifices are what it takes to right this ship then so be it. While everybody dances around politics, the financial hole deepens.
Bob, if I intended my comment, directed at you, I would have addressed it so. I have no idea your feelings as to Britney et al.
I do take exception to the use of labels such as PC. I have never embraced PC beyond the self-improvement of my own awareness of others and their feelings. For me it amounts to deference to others' cultural/social differences which I have no vested interest in insulting or demeaning or, more importantly, changing.
As much as SOME people lump institutionalized/legal deference to cultural differences in a wide brushstroke condemnation of infringement on (a yet to be defined) essential Americanism, I see that criticism as a myopic example, akin to a horse with blinders. 'American' is an amoebic work in progress. Extracting one era, region or community's vision of Americanism and construing it to be representative of all Americans is like dipping a bucket in the river at the Port of New Orleans, putting the contents in a bottle and declaring it 'the Mississippi.'
<p>
"If eliminating programs that fund the arts, if taking large chunks out of entitlement programs, if making unprecedented sacrifices are what it takes to right this ship then so be it."</p>
<p>
As long as you are giving short answers, this one should be easy. Who is being asked to make unprecedented sacrifices if the NEA is eliminated? </p>
<p>
Peter,</p>
<p>
Do you know if the Sterling Renaissance Festival<span style="display: none"> </span> receives any grants? Just wondering.</p>
<p>
<span style="display: none">re receives </span></p>
<p>
I don't know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
And if they do I would vote to remove them, even though I love the festival.</p>
<p>
Based on the prices and the $2 million investment made in 2008, I don't think it does.</p>
<p>
Here's why I think that art should be determined by the free market.</p>
<p>
In the 90's my father bought a canvas, a frame, and some watercolors.</p>
<p>
He painted a red, white, and blue wavey stripe across it then took a bunch of colors and splattered them all over the canvas. It was equivlent to children's art. He did this in an attempt to mock modern art. He signed it and named it American Medley. He valued it at $450 and submitted it to WXXI's annual auction. It sold for more than $150.</p>
<p>
He didn't take the tax write off or anything, but if that is considered art by someone and they want it, fine. But handing people grants to fleece the government (and in turn the people) in this way is a gross mismanagement of the people's trust and money.</p>
When a local art organization gets money to hand out in grants, they make value determinations about which art/artists to support. Some of those decisions are based on merit (a good new artist might be able to break through) and some based on reputation (established artists might get help with a new show) or it's used to support historic art/culture in the community.
But people making decisions about art is what is happening, and that is a free market function.
<p>
Peter,</p>
<p>
Your father didn't apply for a grant to purchase the material. He just did it. </p>
<p>
Regardless of his intent, the work was purchased either to support PBS or because someone liked the colors. Maybe they wanted it for a nursery. Who knows?</p>
<p>
What you father did in jest could be thought of as folk art. </p>
<p>
Who knows, it may someday end up hanging in a museum somewhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Ah, but Julie, how do we know it didn't have honesty? It was a concious effort to make something for the benefit of PBS. It succeeded.</p>
<p>
At some point, the squiggles and the splatters were looked at and determined to be a finished work both by Peter's father and whoever purchased it.</p>
<p>
I could see something like that hanging in a nursery. Childlike? </p>
<p>
What better colors and patterns to catch the attention of new eyes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
Maybe our discussion should be placed in the context of economic/political unrest in Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt.
Should our artistic/historical heritage be handed over to the private sector? Should our heritage have to fend for itself in lean times or become the sole property of those who can afford it? Should History and art be subject to whim and thievery like the artifacts in Egypt's museums, Iraq's museums or the religious motivations that destroyed the Buddhas at Bamiyan by way of Taliban sanctimony?
Most of us are not old enough to recall that Historic sites like Fort Ticonderoga, Fort Niagara and others were not always protected- were fading away, victims of neglect. Prior to the 1960s, most towns had no established department of History or local museums to protect and display a community's past.
When we recognize that art, literature and History are not popular, yet understand human heritage to be culturally significant and fragile; we find a way to preserve and catalog for the sake of human posterity- even if it is not a commercial or practical necessity. We also understand that significance is not based on subjective analysis- whether political, religious or personal taste. ...Or profit.
If anyone doubts that destruction of Historic sites could not happen in the U.S. on a scale similar to the Taliban purge of non-Muslim artifacts- consider our own mid-west. The ancient mound-builders from our Native American past left evidence of their civilization- much of it in the Ohio Valley. Certain individuals concerned that evidence to a great non-Christian civilization might undermine accepted dogma had the mounds systematically destroyed.
That's a dramatic and unlikely repeated example. No less dangerous than surrendering a heritage belonging to all Americans to a few who can afford to pay the price for antiques and art to be warehoused in private drawing rooms. ...And what becomes of that which isn't scooped up?
NPR and PBS have become weak
NPR and PBS have become weak willed sycophants, to the right wing terrorist American Taliban, in order to garner pennies on the dollar of previous public funding levels. If they abandon the right and stick to the left I believe we can and will support them through non tax deductible donations and be proud of ourselves, once again. But, I can only speak for myself. The rest is conjecture, not yet fact.
ummm Is that why Juan
ummm Is that why Juan Williams was fired? I think not....
Peter he was fired for making
Peter he was fired for making racist comments. I don't miss him, do you? Turn on Fox News if you do.
Racist how? " I mean,
Racist how?
" I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb, and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
There is nothing racist their. Not even bigoted in my opinion... He expressed how he feels when he sees something.
George, That's not true. He
George,
That's not true. He expressed a personal opinion and as a commentator, that was part of his job. He was fired for not being politically correct.
But Juan Williams is not the issue. NPR and PBS are private corporations and can hire and fire who they want.
But since they are private, why should my tax money go to them? This is just another example of corporate welfare.
The vote I made I made for
The vote I made I made for Elmo. Not for bigots and racists. :) My babies love Sesame Street!
Sara, I'm sure when children
Sara,
I'm sure when children come into Peter's household, they will not be permitted to watch Elmo. His children will never be permitted to partake of government welfare and indoctrination.
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in White Anglo garb, and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as White Anglos, I get worried. I get nervous."
When I see gimme caps and a Skoal ring on the back pocket I get nervous too. I'm nervous I might kick them in the ass. Just my personal opinion. Unfund them, they won't go away. The right wing just won't have a say.
Bea, If good old Elmo lost
Bea,
If good old Elmo lost his government funding, and had to get advertising dollars like all other network shows, there would be a line a mile long to sign him up. He and his buddies are some of the most popular things on TV. Elmo is not going away.
John you beat me to the
John you beat me to the punch.
And Bea, PBS has some great shows that I love. This Old House, The New Yankee Workshop, The Woodwrights Shop (I think), Simply Ming... I grew up watching The Frugal Gourmet and Bob Ross. But the country needs the money for other things, like paying the bills Obama has put before us.
In the days of its inception, there were not many choices, now their are thousands. And I am sure each of the shows I mentioned will immediately be picked up.
And I used to have a Snuffy stuffed animal and my great uncle dressed as big bird for the annual Independence Day parade at Sky Line campgrounds near Attica. But I do hate Elmo. Grover is much better, especially as a waiter.
Austin City Limits already
Austin City Limits already sold out to "the Man" Tickets at the new facility in the fancy ass Downtown Hotel theater are up to $150 instead of free, and no free beer. The good old days are gone but luckily I got my fill plus some before they disappeared. The Martini crowd are in control now.
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr8EOQgcorM]
I agree about Grover. I am a
I agree about Grover. I am a fan myself. My children, God bless them, are part of the Elmo generation. I have no doubt that the shows will be picked up. Just a strange thought that PBS wouldn't be there anymore. Either way it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. :)
I rarely if ever watch
I rarely if ever watch broadcast television. Thirty-forty years ago, when I did; I watched PBS quite regularly. Frontline was one of the programs I looked forward to. Unlike ABC-NBC-CBS, PBS did not spend 20 minutes out of each 60, trying to sell me something. Unlike ABC-NBC-CBS, I usually didn't feel short-changed after watching a program on PBS.
Upon switching from antenna to DirecTV/USSB in the mid-90s, my television diet was primarily uncut, uninterrupted movies. I also watched Discovery Channel- before the producers decided to embrace pseudoscience, angels and Bible-centrism.
Like so many things, DTV became popular, very expensive, very commercial and insipid. ...Just lost another channel (first, AMC, now IFC) to MTV syndrome.
I anxiously await the next intelligent option for home entertainment. (Aside from books.)
I simply cannot understand
I simply cannot understand why I am forced, through taxation, to help support PBS and NPR. Please add the NEA and put it at the top of the list.
I don't watch PBS or listen to NPR. They do not offer programming that interests me. And I resent paying for them. If they offered a product that people choosed to watch/listen to, fine! Let those that want the product PAY for the product. I don't expect other taxpayers to fund The Batavian just because I want to read it.
As far as Juan Williams goes, Peter and John nailed - his opinion was not acceptable to the PC crowd. Then, only after public outcry arose and threatened funding cuts to NPR was the person that fired him fired.
Even more aggravating is public funding of the radically liberal NEA. I find "art" depicting Jesus soaked in urine to be revolting and indescribably offensive. And the tax paying, hard working American is forced to support this, yet privately funded nativity scenes are said to be offensive and banned from public property - and prayer banned from schools.
The term "hell in a hand basket" comes to mind.
There is good programming on
There is good programming on PBS, I can't speak for NPR because I don't listen to it, but these are unprecedented fiscal times and if things need to be cut, then cut that which is subjective (i.e. arts and entertainment). That which is of substantial quality and demand will survive in the open market, that which is not will rightfully go away, or be supported by some deep private pockets who feel it neccessary to keep. Washington keeps comparing itself to the average American household and how it should be budgeted during tight times, well most Americans when faced with food and shelter or movies and entertainment, would take the food and shelter...again I say most. Time for Washington to make the tough choices.
Very Very well said Bob.
Very Very well said Bob.
Along this same theme. GO ART
Along this same theme. GO ART should be defunded in our area.
As well as the history dept.,
As well as the history dept., the airport, the county highway dept. and Genesee Justice.
"All ART need encouragement
"All ART need encouragement and monetary support to survive.
Art is who we are. It is about who we are going to be. Art is what makes us human and helps us recognize our own humanity. And that is slipping away. Art makes us civilized and any monetary support to protect that is a good thing.
When you study history you study the art to see how civilized that culture could have been and when the future archaeologist study our buried treasures they will find melted and broken CDs because they won't be much art to find.*"
Oh wait, you also want to eliminate the history department. You didn't mention museums or libraries. Should they be off the list too?
* http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905010037AAGRT0J
Bea, are you saying that
Bea, are you saying that public funds SHOULD be used to publicize, promote, and display "art" as I described above? Or the virgin Mary using sex toys? Feces replacing the stars on the American flag? All in the name of art.
If a prayer at a school football game offends ONE person, it is subsequently banned. Folks in apartments are forced to remove flags from their windows because some wacko complains. Schools are sued for asking students to stand for the pledge of allegiance to the country in which they live.
And you are saying that forcing me to pay for things I abhor is justified?
I truly, truly, do not understand such thinking. Things that are funded by tax money and deeply offend the majority are good, and things that supposedly offend a very few that cost the taxpayer NOTHING are bad?
Repeating for emphasis: I don't understand.
Bea, I know you were
Bea,
I know you were responding to the post above yours.
I have to reply to what you posted though. Specifically the part about future archaeologist only finding melted an broken cd's. I disagree with this. There are many great artist out there right now making what they consider to be art.
Yes, let's not fund anything
Yes, let's not fund anything arty, intellectual or provocative. In the distant future, when archeologists paw over the remains of the 21st Century; they can debate as to whether meteor or nuclear war caused all trace of human ingenuity to be extinguished from our era. Just, please, someone securely encapsulate pictures of Britney, Lindsay, Charlie and Paris so Historians (assuming they might be funded again) can discern that which we found truly relevant.
Bob, the offensive art you
Bob, the offensive art you cited - the so-called 'Piss Christ' - was created in 1987. It was the source of a massive conservative backlash in the late 1980s that led to major changes at the NEA. Specifically, they ceased all individual artist grants and generally took on funding State or local art councils and translation projects. If you are perhaps looking to maintain a more contemporary outrage (as opposed to the ones that have already whipped to death over the course of twenty years), I suggest being outraged at the NEA's 'Shakespeare in America's Communities' program. The NEA has the GALL to fund a Shakespearean theater troupe that travels across America to small towns that would otherwise never get to experience Shakespeare as his work was meant to be experienced.
And...some of the actors might be wearing tights.
Jeremiah, Yes, there are
Jeremiah,
Yes, there are people creating magnificent works. Where will they be displayed? Who will be privileged to see, read or hear them?
Is the key word "privileged"? Should we make the arts the sole possession of the elite? If so, then we have gone backward a few centuries and reverted to the dark ages.
Sadly, the only 'art' Bob can identify is (in my opinion) worthless. There are books, paintings, sculpture and musical scores that should be celebrated and wouldn't be with us without grants.
This is a slippery slope. Art is subjective. The subject matter that Bob and I consider inappropriate may have innovative techniques (I'd have a difficult time finding what they are).
Even if there was no public funding, that offensive art work would be financed by someone who felt the artist had promise. It would still be with us. It still would end up hanging in a museum or gallery, funded in part by private and public grants.
To be honest, I've never seen the artwork that Bob mentioned. I've heard about them for many years, it has been the banner cry by those who want to do away with the NEA for a long time. It just isn't something I care to spend time perusing. That is my personal choice.
I find it difficult to believe that the funding by the NEA is all going to the type of art that Bob mentions:
"In most areas, funding is limited to organizations. (Direct awards to individuals are made only through Literature Fellowships, NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships, NEA Opera Honors, and NEA National Heritage Fellowships in the Folk & Traditional Arts.)
Artist Communities
Arts Education
Dance
Design
Folk & Traditional Arts
Literature
Local Arts Agencies
Media Arts
Museums
Music
Musical Theater
Opera
Presenting
State and Regional
Theater
Visual Arts
http://www.nea.gov/Grants/apply/index.html
The U.S. Supreme Court has
The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the government is not required to subsidize artistic expression with public funds. But the Court has also found that once it does decide to provide funds for arts programs, the government cannot withdraw that funding no matter the content.
In other words, all or nothing. I'd prefer nothing.
Bea, as usual, you fail to address the questions posed. You, instead, choose to take my words out of context and refer to me in the 3rd person. So much for constructive debate.
CM, as is your standard, you infer that I am stating things that I am not. Let me put it words you may understand: I am firmly opposed to money I earn being taken from me to fund pornography, anti-Christian messages, and the like. I do NOT ask you to fund me or anyone else espousing my views. I resent your attempts to stifle me whenever I exercise my right to free speech whether it be through public prayer, voicing my conservative views, or simply disagreeing with the left's perspective.
You are blinded by your liberal arrogance and quasi-intellectualism.
Wow, Bob, calm down. I
Wow, Bob, calm down.
I believe I did refer to you, "This is a slippery slope. Art is subjective. The subject matter that Bob and I consider inappropriate may have innovative techniques (I'd have a difficult time finding what they are).".
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? No one is arguing that the 'art work' and I use the term loosely, isn't offensive.
My concern with the 'all or nothing' concept is that too many good, talented, creative people will never get the chance to use their skills due to lack of finances.
You prefer nothing. That is your choice.
Bea writes "My concern with
Bea writes "My concern with the 'all or nothing' concept is that too many good, talented, creative people will never get the chance to use their skills due to lack of finances." For hundreds of years good, talented, and creative people have used their skills to create, invent, and produce incredible things. They then took those things and introduced them to other people and when they agreed that they were truly valuable, other people paid for them. Sometimes, lots of people thought those things were valuable and those creative people became very wealthy. Sometimes, however, the creative people found that their stuff didn't really have a broad appeal so they either came up with different/better stuff or found a different vocation. Somewhere along the line, government do-gooders saw fit to subsidize creative people whose stuff really didn't have that much appeal, called it cultural enlightenment, and it became yet another tax payer funded entitlement that we no longer can or should afford. However, we all know what happens when we try to take an entitlement away, suddenly the common sense budget balancers become ugly, unrefined, barbarians who want to do away with everything that is right and good.
Jeff, not really that
Jeff, not really that simple.
In times when the primary government in much of Europe was the Church, the Church -- which levied a sort of tax on the people to enrich itself -- commissioned art.
In feudal times, when the upper classes controlled the money and took care of what we would consider even essential government services today (police protection, for example, and roads), they acted as patrons for art. So, in a way, the people paid for art, even if they didn't like it.
Throughout history, there were all kinds of methods for funding art that amounted to subsidies for artists.
And many artists who we now consider masters likely didn't make much of a living off their work while they were alive.
On one hand, a system whereby local art councils help identify worthy artists for recognition makes a good amount of sense. In such a system, some merit for assistance is involved.
Typically, however, these grants aren't sufficient for an artist to make a living off their work ... often the grants go to the cost of materials or promoting a showing.
Local art is exceptionally enriching and important to a community, so local groups identifying worthy artists seems like something worthwhile to at least tolerate.
There are certainly issues with national funding of arts that take on a whole different meaning to the question, but on at least a local level, it doesn't take us far away from the centuries-old way of subsidizing art for the sake of the community.
Sounds great in a time when
Sounds great in a time when municipalities and governments are flush with cash. Not the case anymore, somethings have to get cut loose. That which the public demands remain, they will pay for. Drastic times call for drastic measures. It is that simple. Besides, you posed the question to begin with and it pertained to NPR and PBS. They are not local.
Jeff, no one has called
Jeff, no one has called anyone ugly, unrefined barbarians.
We are going around in circles. For the record, I have not made this political. I can't believe that the only groups applying for grants are all from one affiliation.
You, and others, do not want to fund the arts. I understand that. Others, see a benefit in encouraging and providing grants to those blessed with exceptional talent.
Yes, some cream will rise to the top regardless of funding. Should their works be displayed, or heard only in venues that are not funded, in part, by public grants?
I wonder if the Batavia-Bayou Cross Cultural Connection, taking place at GCC today, had any public funding?
A portion of your tax money goes to Genesee Country Village in Mumford. Should that be shut down because they get funding for educational programs?
How far should we go to close anything that receives grant money?
Fort Niagra, many museums, and entities like Go Art receive funding. Should they all go?
Bea, the short answer to all
Bea, the short answer to all your questions is...in this economic climate, yes. States, yes entire states, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Our national debt to GDP ratio is actually worse than in the Great Depression. This is not a drill, we are in serious economic trouble and VERY tough choices need to be made. I am not politicizing this. If eliminating programs that fund the arts, if taking large chunks out of entitlement programs, if making unprecedented sacrifices are what it takes to right this ship then so be it. While everybody dances around politics, the financial hole deepens.
Bob, if I intended my
Bob, if I intended my comment, directed at you, I would have addressed it so. I have no idea your feelings as to Britney et al.
I do take exception to the use of labels such as PC. I have never embraced PC beyond the self-improvement of my own awareness of others and their feelings. For me it amounts to deference to others' cultural/social differences which I have no vested interest in insulting or demeaning or, more importantly, changing.
As much as SOME people lump institutionalized/legal deference to cultural differences in a wide brushstroke condemnation of infringement on (a yet to be defined) essential Americanism, I see that criticism as a myopic example, akin to a horse with blinders. 'American' is an amoebic work in progress. Extracting one era, region or community's vision of Americanism and construing it to be representative of all Americans is like dipping a bucket in the river at the Port of New Orleans, putting the contents in a bottle and declaring it 'the Mississippi.'
"If eliminating programs that
<p>
"If eliminating programs that fund the arts, if taking large chunks out of entitlement programs, if making unprecedented sacrifices are what it takes to right this ship then so be it."</p>
<p>
As long as you are giving short answers, this one should be easy. Who is being asked to make unprecedented sacrifices if the NEA is eliminated? </p>
I believe in letting the free
<p>
I believe in letting the free market decide what is art and what its value is.</p>
Peter, Do you know if the
<p>
Peter,</p>
<p>
Do you know if the Sterling Renaissance Festival<span style="display: none"> </span> receives any grants? Just wondering.</p>
<p>
<span style="display: none">re receives </span></p>
I don't know. And if
<p>
I don't know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
And if they do I would vote to remove them, even though I love the festival.</p>
<p>
Based on the prices and the $2 million investment made in 2008, I don't think it does.</p>
Here's why I think that art
<p>
Here's why I think that art should be determined by the free market.</p>
<p>
In the 90's my father bought a canvas, a frame, and some watercolors.</p>
<p>
He painted a red, white, and blue wavey stripe across it then took a bunch of colors and splattered them all over the canvas. It was equivlent to children's art. He did this in an attempt to mock modern art. He signed it and named it American Medley. He valued it at $450 and submitted it to WXXI's annual auction. It sold for more than $150.</p>
<p>
He didn't take the tax write off or anything, but if that is considered art by someone and they want it, fine. But handing people grants to fleece the government (and in turn the people) in this way is a gross mismanagement of the people's trust and money.</p>
When a local art organization
When a local art organization gets money to hand out in grants, they make value determinations about which art/artists to support. Some of those decisions are based on merit (a good new artist might be able to break through) and some based on reputation (established artists might get help with a new show) or it's used to support historic art/culture in the community.
But people making decisions about art is what is happening, and that is a free market function.
Peter, Your father didn't
<p>
Peter,</p>
<p>
Your father didn't apply for a grant to purchase the material. He just did it. </p>
<p>
Regardless of his intent, the work was purchased either to support PBS or because someone liked the colors. Maybe they wanted it for a nursery. Who knows?</p>
<p>
What you father did in jest could be thought of as folk art. </p>
<p>
Who knows, it may someday end up hanging in a museum somewhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
Bea, you offer an interesting
Bea, you offer an interesting perspective on that sad story. Art without honesty is just damn sad.
Ah, but Julie, how do we know
<p>
Ah, but Julie, how do we know it didn't have honesty? It was a concious effort to make something for the benefit of PBS. It succeeded.</p>
<p>
At some point, the squiggles and the splatters were looked at and determined to be a finished work both by Peter's father and whoever purchased it.</p>
<p>
I could see something like that hanging in a nursery. Childlike? </p>
<p>
What better colors and patterns to catch the attention of new eyes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
Maybe our discussion should
Maybe our discussion should be placed in the context of economic/political unrest in Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt.
Should our artistic/historical heritage be handed over to the private sector? Should our heritage have to fend for itself in lean times or become the sole property of those who can afford it? Should History and art be subject to whim and thievery like the artifacts in Egypt's museums, Iraq's museums or the religious motivations that destroyed the Buddhas at Bamiyan by way of Taliban sanctimony?
Most of us are not old enough to recall that Historic sites like Fort Ticonderoga, Fort Niagara and others were not always protected- were fading away, victims of neglect. Prior to the 1960s, most towns had no established department of History or local museums to protect and display a community's past.
When we recognize that art, literature and History are not popular, yet understand human heritage to be culturally significant and fragile; we find a way to preserve and catalog for the sake of human posterity- even if it is not a commercial or practical necessity. We also understand that significance is not based on subjective analysis- whether political, religious or personal taste. ...Or profit.
If anyone doubts that destruction of Historic sites could not happen in the U.S. on a scale similar to the Taliban purge of non-Muslim artifacts- consider our own mid-west. The ancient mound-builders from our Native American past left evidence of their civilization- much of it in the Ohio Valley. Certain individuals concerned that evidence to a great non-Christian civilization might undermine accepted dogma had the mounds systematically destroyed.
That's a dramatic and unlikely repeated example. No less dangerous than surrendering a heritage belonging to all Americans to a few who can afford to pay the price for antiques and art to be warehoused in private drawing rooms. ...And what becomes of that which isn't scooped up?
Howard - This discussion
<p>
Howard - This discussion would make for an interesting poll question for tomorrow.</p>
Bob proclaimed the virtues of
Bob proclaimed the virtues of his conservatism and it reminded me of this:
I couldn't help but think of this episode from The West "Wing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdz985HTJk&playnext=1&list=PL0306373C30…
Bea, I am sure who ever did
Bea,
I am sure who ever did buy it liked it.
Howard,
If he would have taken the $450 tax right off, what would have been the difference?
I think Peter's story
I think Peter's story illustrates the difference between what it was originally intended and what it has become...much like most Government programs.
I agree, Jeff. It was never
I agree, Jeff.
It was never intended to be, but still turned into something good and valuable.
Here is a guy who stands up
Here is a guy who stands up for what he belives and doesn't mind telling the GOP what he thinks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFivQYjC-Q&feature=player_embedded