Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 67 of 67
  1. #51
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person" DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    That particular photograph was shown at the privately held Corcoran Museum of Art. Should they be punished?
    The NEA was simply underwriting the traveling exhibit at that Museum.
    How does that have anything to do with this topic. No one is talking about punishing anyone. The Corcoran can exhibit whatever it cares to.

    The problem is that part of the funding for the work of so-called art came from the NEA. http://whattheheckisart.blogspot.com...ern-times.html
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  2. #52
    dlo
    dlo is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    How does that have anything to do with this topic. No one is talking about punishing anyone. The Corcoran can exhibit whatever it cares to.

    The problem is that part of the funding for the work of so-called art came from the NEA. http://whattheheckisart.blogspot.com...ern-times.html
    The NEA supported a traveling exhibit of a well known photographer at the Corcoran.
    one picture - of many - raised people's ire.
    So yes - in an inadvertent and circumscribed way, NEA enabled that artist to post one picture that was offensive.
    But that doesn't mean they endorse or support controversial art

    its no different than thousands of other examples of someone doing something inappropriate while being partially supported by money that came from somewhere in the Gov

  3. #53
    Conservitum Americum OneAdam12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    2,359
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    The NEA supported a traveling exhibit of a well known photographer at the Corcoran.
    one picture - of many - raised people's ire.
    So yes - in an inadvertent and circumscribed way, NEA enabled that artist to post one picture that was offensive.
    But that doesn't mean they endorse or support controversial art

    its no different than thousands of other examples of someone doing something inappropriate while being partially supported by money that came from somewhere in the Gov
    You just made my point. Why does the government have to support the arts? Art is very subjective. If I don't like the art that is produced I don't buy it. I can also produce my own. Art should sustain itself. If you produce crap art that only you appreciate, you need to change your art or get another job.
    Pete Malloy, "The only thing black and white about this job is the car."

  4. #54
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person" DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    The NEA supported a traveling exhibit of a well known photographer at the Corcoran.
    one picture - of many - raised people's ire.
    So yes - in an inadvertent and circumscribed way, NEA enabled that artist to post one picture that was offensive.
    But that doesn't mean they endorse or support controversial art

    its no different than thousands of other examples of someone doing something inappropriate while being partially supported by money that came from somewhere in the Gov
    And the point is . . . ? Whatever you are saying does not seem to suggest that the NEA is doing wondrous things for art and culture and so is essential.

    In any event, there is no proposal to punish the NEA, just to defund it. The government does not fund the Corcoran.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  5. #55
    Operator Bearcat357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pineapples and Coconuts
    Posts
    18,202
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    If the USDA provides farm subsidies, and some unscrupulous farmer decides to grow pot instead of corn,
    You can't blame the USDA for "trying to promote a pot growing agenda"
    A. The USDA maintains control and accountability over the farmers that receive the subsidies. The NEA does not.... I've yet to hear the USDA toss farmers in jail for growing pot. 99.9% of the farmers that get monies from the USDA are running decent sized operations. Hell, even a small farmer is in the hole for a 100K tractor plus probably 300-500K worth of equipment. Folks having that much money at stake don't go out and farm dope for the most part......


    B. Are saying you approve of a display called "Pis ssing on Christ"....???

  6. #56
    We Patrol Night and Day FNA209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    3,353
    The National Endowment for the Arts spends taxes on something we don't need to pay taxes on, particularly when we are broke.

    CT has a similar law and every state building has to have some art put in. Some of it is pretty cool stuff. Some is, IMO, a waste of money. But regardless of your tastes, CT is broke. It's not a law that should be in effect. It's a frivolous spending of taxes. Maybe if CT and the feds both get their spending down, their deficits fixed, and taxes at a reasonable level, they can start spending money on that stuff, but currently, it's unnecessary and the money is better spent in other ways.
    "Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince" - Unknown Author
    ______________________________________________

    "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." - Thomas Jefferson
    ______________________________________________

    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” - John Adams

  7. #57
    dlo
    dlo is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    1,555
    In my opinion, government funding for grants serves an important function to stimulate industries - whether its science, the arts or business.
    Like the NEA website said, their seed grants often produce $7 for every $1 they initiate.

    Government grants are important, in addition to private grants, because they are theoretically more reliable and less subject to the booms/busts of economic cycles.
    there are many projects that simply could not get started without government seed money - because they are not completely profitable (in a dollar sense) or because they need support until they become profitable.
    Plus there are the collateral benefits that DAL and I discussed earlier

  8. #58
    Bigfoot Country JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,460
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    In my opinion, government funding for grants serves an important function to stimulate industries - whether its science, the arts or business.
    Like the NEA website said, their seed grants often produce $7 for every $1 they initiate.
    ...and the NEA is a totally objective source for that? What's wrong with letting business, science and art be as valuable as the citizens make it?
    Government grants are important, in addition to private grants, because they are theoretically more reliable and less subject to the booms/busts of economic cycles.
    there are many projects that simply could not get started without government seed money - because they are not completely profitable (in a dollar sense) or because they need support until they become profitable.
    Plus there are the collateral benefits that DAL and I discussed earlier
    Every business venture is started with "seed money". Do you have any idea what the success rate is between public and private endeavors? Seems kind of important in order to hold onto your theory. Is the government better at picking winners?

  9. #59
    dlo
    dlo is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    1,555
    .and the NEA is a totally objective source for that? What's wrong with letting business, science and art be as valuable as the citizens make it?
    Every business venture is started with "seed money". Do you have any idea what the success rate is between public and private endeavors? Seems kind of important in order to hold onto your theory. Is the government better at picking winners?
    Art I can acquiesce a little on... that is a little tougher to objectively defend Gov funding for. Although I still think its a reasonable, small expenditure to promote the arts in this country. Probably every great civilization in history has had government support artistic endeavors as a representation of that culture
    Science is a very different story.

    Every business venture does start with seed money. I agree
    What I was getting at is that many ventures are never touched by the private industry b/c they are not profitable enough - or not profitable quickly enough.
    And the Gov may not be a better chooser - but I don't think it needs to be.
    That's part of the point.
    If it were left completely to the private industry, only "profitable" ventures would ever come to be
    But there are ventures that have value other than $$ (especially in the arts). And those would be lost if not for Gov support

    NEA had a large part in funding the running the design competition for the Vietnam Vets Memorial.
    Maybe that kind of thing would happen if left strictly to the "free market". but maybe not. Its not inherently profitable

  10. #60
    PSP Ret.
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    how is funding the arts pushing a political agenda ?
    Do you deny that a frequently touted purpose of art is to make a statement or that those statements commonly concern an issue confronting the society the artist lives in. That is the very definition of a political agenda.

    They provide funds, and artists then pursue their particular endeavors

    Can't blame the NEA for an individual's poor taste
    I can and I do. The controversy over the P*SS Christ demonstrates the lack of oversight concerning the disbursment of taxpayers dollars that many of us object to.

    there is no "NEA panel" evaluating each individual work of art, which is exactly why you can't blame the nonexistent "NEA panel" for ever piece of art that comes out of NEA funding, to some degree
    The fourteen memember National Council on the Arts reviews and approves grant applications. I would submit that they constitute a panel. Again you misstate my previous post. I never said that the panel judges each individual piece of art.

    Quote Originally Posted by PABear31 View Post
    While the NEA panel does not exercise prior approval of an individual work the do make value judgements of individual artists.

    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    So yes - in an inadvertent and circumscribed way, NEA enabled that artist to post one picture that was offensive.
    But that doesn't mean they endorse or support controversial art
    That's exactly what it means. When an artist submits a grant application The NEA "panel" reviews the application and makes an evaluation of the value of the artist's body of work. Any evaluation of art is necessarily subjective. If they approve the grant or in other words endorse that value of an artist the then release funds to support that artist.

    In my opinion, government funding for grants serves an important function to stimulate industries - whether its science, the arts or business.
    And only your opinion counts.

    Probably every great civilization in history has had government support artistic endeavors as a representation of that culture
    I'd like to see some examples where funds were distributed to fund artists where the artists' point of view didn't promote the agendas of the rulers' or the governments' points of view.

    NEA had a large part in funding the running the design competition for the Vietnam Vets Memorial.
    Maybe that kind of thing would happen if left strictly to the "free market". but maybe not. Its not inherently profitable
    That is just untrue. The original authorization to construct the Vietnam War Memorial prohibited the expenditure of public funds for it's design or construction. The Memorial was funded entirely with public donations.
    When Society makes war on its police, it better be prepared to make friends of its criminals.

  11. #61
    dlo
    dlo is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    1,555
    Do you deny that a frequently touted purpose of art is to make a statement or that those statements commonly concern an issue confronting the society the artist lives in. That is the very definition of a political agenda.
    Yes, I do deny it. I don't think art is "frequently" intended to make a statement about "issues".

    Sure, it does happen. But there are plenty of "issues" that are not "the very definition of a political agenda".
    not all issues are political


    I can and I do. The controversy over the P*SS Christ demonstrates the lack of oversight concerning the disbursment of taxpayers dollars that many of us object to.
    no. as you said in your next sentence: "I never said that the panel judges each individual piece of art..."
    that piece of art was an individual piece


    The fourteen memember National Council on the Arts reviews and approves grant applications. I would submit that they constitute a panel. Again you misstate my previous post. I never said that the panel judges each individual piece of art.
    yes. they approve grant applications
    They don't approve/disapprove specifics about the art which the grants suppor


    That's exactly what it means. When an artist submits a grant application The NEA "panel" reviews the application and makes an evaluation of the value of the artist's body of work. Any evaluation of art is necessarily subjective. If they approve the grant or in other words endorse that value of an artist the then release funds to support that artist.
    Actually, the NEA pushes most of the grant authority to state levels.

    And only your opinion counts.
    Of course it doesn't.
    I was simply stating my opinion, instead of insinuating what should be done - as you are
    I'd like to see some examples where funds were distributed to fund artists where the artists' point of view didn't promote the agendas of the rulers' or the governments' points of view.
    how about that "P__ on Christ" photo. Do you think that piece was promoting George HW Bush's agenda (who was President at the time) ?

    That is just untrue. The original authorization to construct the Vietnam War Memorial prohibited the expenditure of public funds for it's design or construction. The Memorial was funded entirely with public donations.
    http://www.nea.gov/about/40th/vietnam.html

    NEA Panel Chooses Design for Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial

    1981In November of 1980, the Council for the Arts approves a funding request from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to support a competition to select the design team for the National Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, DC. This competition was ultimately won by Maya Lin, then an undergraduate student at Yale University, who had taken on the project as part of a school design studio.

    The Memorial's design was selected through a national design competition open to all U.S. citizens. Ultimately, 1,421 design entries were submitted, and then judged anonymously by a jury of eight internationally recognized artists and designers. Construction of the 247-foot wall began on March 16, 1982, and was completed in October. Today, there are 58,249 names engraved on the wall; each was etched by a computer using a process called photo stencil gritblasting. The special granite came from quarries in Bangalore, India and was cut in Vermont.

    Maya Lin’s winning design is widely considered one of the best public memorials built in the last century: a long slash of polished black granite set below ground level, where visitors descend to read the names of the dead in ever taller columns, and then slowly ascend as the list dwindles. Flags and letters are routinely left as markers; and visitors often rub the imprint of a cherished name onto a piece of paper. It is thought to be the most visited memorial in Washington, D.C.

  12. #62
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person" DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by FNA209 View Post
    The National Endowment for the Arts spends taxes on something we don't need to pay taxes on, particularly when we are broke.
    Worse yet, the NEA spends borrowed money. We don't have the tax revenue to fund it.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  13. #63
    More cowbell! That Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Anchorage, Ak
    Posts
    2,374
    But we can afford x# of Tomahawks fired at will at $575000 a pop.........
    Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The views expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer [This sig stolen from Brickcop who stole it from Frank Booth].

  14. #64
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person" DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by That Guy View Post
    But we can afford x# of Tomahawks fired at will at $575000 a pop.........
    I would say that defense is essential, whereas subsidizing "art" is not.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  15. #65
    More cowbell! That Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Anchorage, Ak
    Posts
    2,374
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    I would say that defense is essential, whereas subsidizing "art" is not.
    I see your point and art/music better rounded people but we are broke. However shooting them at Libya isn't for our defense.....I won't sway away from the topic and take it over to the appropriate thread.
    Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The views expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer [This sig stolen from Brickcop who stole it from Frank Booth].

  16. #66
    PSP Ret.
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by dlo View Post
    Yes, I do deny it. I don't think art is "frequently" intended to make a statement about "issues".
    A simple search of google for "art and politics" yielded 25,000,000 links. I think that qualifies as frequently.

    Sure, it does happen. But there are plenty of "issues" that are not "the very definition of a political agenda".
    not all issues are political
    You apparently have a very narrow view of what constitues "politics." This is from freedictionary.com:


    Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to behavior within civil governments. However, politics have been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.


    no. as you said in your next sentence: "I never said that the panel judges each individual piece of art..."
    that piece of art was an individual piece
    You are quibbling and selectively quoting portions of what I said to make a point. If the panel had reviewed the body of Andres Serreno's work it would have been apparent that he engaged in shock art. Serrano liked to photograph corpses and burn victims. Many of his photgraphs featured body fluids such as menstrual blood, semen or human milk. If they didn't review his previous work then I think that constitutes a lack of oversight.


    yes. they approve grant applications
    They don't approve/disapprove specifics about the art which the grants suppor
    Apparently you are hung up on the the fact that the NEA panel doesn't exert prior approval of a specific work. You hold them blameless because they didn't approve the individual photograph. I hold them responsible because they supported and endorsed the artist. If I support an artist by making a financial contribution based upon his past work it is a reasonable assumption that I endorse the statements that he has made in those past works and the statements he is likley to make in the futrue works that I am paying for. After all it is unlikely that I am going to pay for works that I disagree with. Do you support individuals and groups that are inimical to your views? I don't.


    Actually, the NEA pushes most of the grant authority to state levels.
    How does that absolves the NEA of their responsibility for the disbursement of taxpayers funds?



    Of course it doesn't.
    I was simply stating my opinion, instead of insinuating what should be done - as you are
    I didn't insinuate anything. I have clearly stated my opinion that the federal government has no business funding the political opinions of artists. You by inplication have stated the opposite. I wonder how happy you would be it the overwhelming amount of the funds expended went to support artists that pushed conservative values?

    how about that "P__ on Christ" photo. Do you think that piece was promoting George HW Bush's agenda (who was President at the time) ?
    First of all the title of the photograph is P*ss Christ. No. I don't. I think that it was promoting Andres Serrano's agenda. That is exactly my point. I don't think that the Federal government should be promoting anybody's agenda, whether it be Serrano's, Bush 41's or mine.


    http://www.nea.gov/about/40th/vietnam.html

    NEA Panel Chooses Design for Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial

    1981In November of 1980, the Council for the Arts approves a funding request from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to support a competition to select the design team for the National Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, DC. This competition was ultimately won by Maya Lin, then an undergraduate student at Yale University, who had taken on the project as part of a school design studio.

    The Memorial's design was selected through a national design competition open to all U.S. citizens. Ultimately, 1,421 design entries were submitted, and then judged anonymously by a jury of eight internationally recognized artists and designers. Construction of the 247-foot wall began on March 16, 1982, and was completed in October. Today, there are 58,249 names engraved on the wall; each was etched by a computer using a process called photo stencil gritblasting. The special granite came from quarries in Bangalore, India and was cut in Vermont.

    Maya Lin’s winning design is widely considered one of the best public memorials built in the last century: a long slash of polished black granite set below ground level, where visitors descend to read the names of the dead in ever taller columns, and then slowly ascend as the list dwindles. Flags and letters are routinely left as markers; and visitors often rub the imprint of a cherished name onto a piece of paper. It is thought to be the most visited memorial in Washington, D.C.
    Hmmmm, the non-existant NEA panel approved an individual piece of art. Yes, I will concede the point that the NEA may fund art works that I agree with. And apparently NEA funding was a loophole in the law authorizing the construction of the Memorial that prohibited public funds from being used. But that doesn't change my opinion that the Federal government should not be funding the arts. Throughout history there has been art. Long before there were organized governments there were artists. Art will not cease to exist if government funding ceases. The existance of art isn't dependant upon scarce federal taxpayers dollars.
    Last edited by PABear31; 03-20-2011 at 04:40 PM.
    When Society makes war on its police, it better be prepared to make friends of its criminals.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •