Why should government support NEA?

[Epidemic]

having gone off topic a little decided to create it's own thread.

could someone explain how the NEA is good for the country? Supporting one fecal matter covered cross or a picture of a toilet with a little globe in it, is supported on occasion. Could you explain how the NEA is used in more reasonable terms?

I look at it as supporting artists who can not support themselves. That does not seem to make sense. Art has been around and evolving for eons with out a government entitlement. Could you explain why even one dollar of my tax money should be spent to support an artist who can not sell their goods to the public?

Or am I missing something?

I am serious I just do not understand the whole concept. PM me if you feel the answer will drift too far off subject or will be too heated

[Knothead]

"I look at it as supporting artists who can not support themselves. "

You're right. Artists can no longer support themselves...on the basis of their art, anyway. It's been that way for some time.

As an artist (actually, I dislike that word, I just tell people I'm "a painter", and leave it at that) I can tell you that serious artists are disrespected, ripped off, and generally hounded into their grave for what they try to do...for what I try to do.

The modern perception of artists is that we just lie around, eating lotus leaves, having orgies, whatever...when we offer our work (and it IS work, believe me, I'll spare you the desciptions of the process, the tears, all that) to the public, we find that what people are willing to give in return for all of that pain/beauty is about enough to make you a homeless person. Which, I presently am.

Lemme tell you, man, it ain't easy!

Does this society deserve to have artists contributing to it?

The National Endowment for the Arts seems to think so.

I tried a few years ago for a grant, (got turned down) and later realized that the level I was at, well, I woulda turned me down, too!

I'm moving toward that again, only due to the fact that I have no normal life, I haven't painted a stroke since last May. I have to live, so I'm trying to make a living building kitchen cabinets and such...which is fine, my body and my work ethic is strong...

But wouldn't it be a fine thing, if the NEA said, "Look, we know darn well you've got something in ya, (God knows what) and we're here to give you a chance to go for it".

And THAT, good buddy, is what the NEA means.

And PLEASE, don't be like so many ignoranuses and decide that those abominable grabs for publicity are typicle of the NEA's mission.

Those so-called "artists" are traitors...we SPIT on them...like Andres Serrano (that "Piss Christ" monstrosity) and their ilk...they constitute a tiny, tiny FRACTION of what the NEA funds.

It's just that while these a-holes are stealing selfish publicity, the political ingnoranuses use their example to bash the good work of some very fine people!

I hope this might set a bit of the record straight, okay?

sorry for the rant.

[Epidemic]

Well I guess I am not going to change my mind at this point.

Perhaps art should not be your (the artist in question) carreer if you can not make people pay what you think it is worth or enough to support you.

I think that the NEA also ignores the little guy while spending millions on these freak iron sculptures you see on government property. Sculptures which 80 to 90% of people say what the hell were they thinking. I do not deny that that lump of steel may have been hard to make.

But even I have had to work very hard evacuating a bound up bowel but no one wants to may for the result

Perhaps the NEA should have to post a complete record of art developed under their charter with who was supported and to the tune of how much and finally the result all on a nice website that we all can enjoy. There are no state secrets so I feel that this would not be too much to ask.

But again I come back to the question, should the government use it's police power to force money from my hand and put it into your knothead for a product I will never see nor enjoy or hate.

some of the things you indicate above indicate that people will not pay what your work is worth. That is a completely subjective thought you feel it is worth alot and everyone else thinks it is not (at least those looking to pay you). is that not the most fair evaluation of your work.

Some artists make a name for themselves in life and people beat down their door for their products. Others do not. I fail to see why the government should step into that free market and support someone who can not make a living off their product.

I do some pretty crummy wordworking myself should government buy my crappy workbench or silly toys I make as a hobby for my kids?

From what I have seen Artists hold their work in such high esteem that they actually get mad at people for not understanding it (those dam heathan masses).

Someone smears paint on a canvas while tripping on opiates and says he sees the beginning of the universe or mans inhumanity to man. The smearing may have taken 15 seconds or 4 years working 12 hours a day. none the less the people with the purse strings see it as a smear. Now I have seen some of your work which you have allowed us to see. Wonderful I say. But I will not pay 1200 dollars for an oak computer case. I do not want my congressman buying it with my money either. Beautiful workmanship, craftsmanship must have taken tons of hours. But it boils down to the fact that I do not see a value in it worth the cost to dress up my next computer.

So build the thing for entertainment as the artist and sell it for what the market will bear.

Thems is just my opinions on it. I love art but like any other collectable I will not pay my kids future for it no matter how pretty it is. It is like fine jewelry, I look at a cubit fake diamond and an real diamond and say what do they do different


Now that the history lesson is over lets rock

[Knothead]

Originally posted by Epidemic
Well I guess I am not going to change my mind at this point.

Perhaps art should not be your (the artist in question) carreer if you can not make people pay what you think it is worth or enough to support you.

Well, I also believe in a free-market economy, and I believe it applies to everything.

Except for one teeny oddball area... and that is the Arts.

The fact is, there is just not enough wealthy patrons to go around, and in the last half-century, the arts in this country are dying a terrible death.

The NEA's purpose is to keep this from happening. Heck, if you're an ordininary taxpayer, it's costing you maybe .50 cents a year....

Pretty good deal, I think!

Originally posted by Epidemic
I think that the NEA also ignores the little guy while spending millions on these freak iron sculptures you see on government property. Sculptures which 80 to 90% of people say what the hell were they thinking. I do not deny that that lump of steel may have been hard to make.

But even I have had to work very hard evacuating a bound up bowel but no one wants to may for the result

*sigh* Yeah, that's the common misconception. People have been betrayed by so much BS "art" that they now think they can't understand it. Gotta tell ya, there's some really great, inspirational stuff out there... Trouble is, there's such a dearth of FUNDING, it's difficult to get it out where people can see it.

Also, don't mistake the "freak iron sculpture" as neccessarily a product of the NEA...most often, it was bought by the corp. that put up the building/park, etc.

Plus, there is (in many towns) a law that says any new high-rise structure has to allocate 2% of the budget for public art. Again, the NEA has nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by Epidemic
Perhaps the NEA should have to post a complete record of art developed under their charter with who was supported and to the tune of how much and finally the result all on a nice website that we all can enjoy. There are no state secrets so I feel that this would not be too much to ask.

Oh, they do, they do! I'll get that website for ya in a few minutes.

Originally posted by Epidemic
But again I come back to the question, should the government use it's police power to force money from my hand and put it into your knothead for a product I will never see nor enjoy or hate.

some of the things you indicate above indicate that people will not pay what your work is worth. That is a completely subjective thought you feel it is worth alot and everyone else thinks it is not (at least those looking to pay you). is that not the most fair evaluation of your work.

Some artists make a name for themselves in life and people beat down their door for their products. Others do not. I fail to see why the government should step into that free market and support someone who can not make a living off their product.

Again, art just refuses to fit into the "free-market" category. It is a cultural force...and sometimes, it's a good idea to subsidize culture, because I dunno about you, but I rarely go to the supermarket for "a box o' culture"...

[Knothead]

Here's a link to the National Endowment for the Arts website. I encourage you to have a look, it won't bite!

[Epidemic]

[quote]Again, art just refuses to fit into the "free-market" category. It is a cultural force...and sometimes, it's a good idea to subsidize culture, because I dunno about you, but I rarely go to the supermarket for "a box o' culture"...[quote]

True but what little art dribbles out of the backrooms of inspired peoples private studios and at penny anty sale prices is perhaps the only art that there should be the market decides that.

Of course with a few high profile artists feeding the ultra rich's megalithic hall ways.

My mom dabbled at painting and dozens of people I know sketch, paint, sculpt and so on.

I do not think it is dying a horrible death. In fact in some ways it is probably growing (my guess) that painting over the fireplace is not something everyone had in the 1800's. The amount of artwork in peoples houses I would venture a guess is greater than historical levels.

Is the problem that the market is flooded with would be artists or that people do not buy enough art?

[crystaldragon]

Epidemic

Interesting point of view you have there. I'm not going to try to change it though. Just suggest a slightly different perspective.

your initial question was

could someone explain how the NEA is good for the country?

In a real time, real application sense it isn't. OK?

But in a larger sense it is beneficial to all society. Art isn't necessarily directly functional. That is the primary reason Artist frequently are unable to support themselves totally on their art. If it doesn't have an immediate use people don't want to pay for it. Art is primarily meant to inspire, to remind us that within ourselves is something beyond the need to exist, to survive, something that sets us apart and above the animals.
Yes there are "artists" who do anything to gain publicity, IMO they are frauds and should be treated as such.
The vast majority of artists though have a "driving need" to express the things they see and by doing so they inspire the rest of us.
As for the cost of art....
Would you or anyone here appreciate being told after working for eight hours (or forty) that the work you had done was only worth the equivalent of two or three hours wages and that was all you where going to be paid for it? I don't know about you, I wouldn't! I'd be looking for someone who appreciated my work and its ultimate value.

As for the function of the NEA......
It is based on historic precedence, just in a modern form.
Through out the history of society there have been those who recognized the situation and supported artists. Known by several different labels their goal was the same, to help keep art alive. These "patrons". "sponsors", and "benefactors" where often wealthy businessmen, in some cases they were governments. The Medici were one of the most notable examples. They all got the money from the same source, the people in the case of businessmen it came from their profits, in the case of governments it came from taxes.

The NEA may not be well administered in the public eye but that will always be the case. Only public opinion can influence the way the NEA does its job, thats one of the reasons that what they do is out there to see. They need the public feedback to try to perform their function.

You have your opinion and of course I have mine Just trying to share.

Just a quick add on
The art over the fire place? You're right it is more common now than in the past but has nothing to do with the NEA. It is mainly production art. It does serve the purpose of more people being able to have and enjoy it though which is great! The NEA's real function is the nurturing and growth of the creative side of art.

[Epidemic]

Ok I visited the NEA site now what?

I saw 10,000 dollar grants to dance troops, I saw hundred thousand dollar grants to dance troops. I am not sure how this helps "ART" in general.

So you gave a dance troop a 100,000 dollars to do what. Dance! the thing they were doing before you gave them money. Now if you were talking about making available scholarships to juliard for people who cant afford it. then maybe you are talking. But supporting a failing dance troop just does not make sense to me. Kids will still tap dance because they like it but there is no market for selling it so why support it. Tap dance will not die it will just be relegated to private self fulfilment rather than a for profit initiative. Then one day like river dance someone will figure a way to revise it or market it and you will have a block buster.

[Knothead]

Originally posted by Epidemic
True but what little art dribbles out of the backrooms of inspired peoples private studios and at penny anty sale prices is perhaps the only art that there should be the market decides that.

I see...so maybe you're just not an "Art-oriented" person, hmm? *shrug*

btw, that stuff you see at the "penny ante" sales is NOT ART...it is wall decoration. Unfortunately, this is about the extent of some people's interest in art.

Originally posted by Epidemic
I do not think it is dying a horrible death. In fact in some ways it is probably growing (my guess) that painting over the fireplace is not something everyone had in the 1800's. The amount of artwork in peoples houses I would venture a guess is greater than historical levels.

Nope. Back in the day, before TV, people were much more culturally versed, or at least culture was much more emphasized. Our tastes were yet to be brutalized by so much syrup-y sweet brain candy, and there was quite an emphasis on refinement.

The painting on the wall of the well-to-do guy meant something! It was a window into other places, personalities, and ideas (hence, the practice of framing a painting).

Nowadays? People most often throw a cheap graphic they got at Sav-on, and totally miss out on what living in art really is.

In other words, our cultural sensibilities are oozing down the drain, man. The REAL artists are doing their damndest to maintain it, among other things!

[Knothead]

Yep, Crystaldragon totally gets it!

It isn't about the $$$$!!! It's about maintaining a culture!!