Sec. of Arts petition

[evaldart]

I wonder if there were "punk" composers 200 years ago. Little known rejects who forced the violin and harpsichord players to rape their instruments in the name of sonic revolt.? Too bad there can be no basement tapes.

[GlennT]

Originally Posted by evaldart

I am determined to make it through life without bothering with the "cultural" pretensions of classical music.

Nobody is asking you to particiapte in cultural pretensions, but if you let that hang you up you'll be missing out on a huge amount of really great, inspiring music, due to... (rebellious prentensions?)

[Ries]

Virtually every thread on this forum seems to degenerate into the same argument-

That is, "what I like is GOOD ART, and what I dont like is BAD".

Which is silly.

If there was an absolute standard for beauty, that was universally true, then every man on earth would want ONE woman, because she was the MOST beautiful. (except for those of us who wanted that one most good looking guy)

Of course, this is not true. Just like each of us finds different women attractive, each of us can like Chamber Music, or Heavy Metal, or Mahler's Symphonies, without the other stuff being BAD.

Anyway- most government arts organisations fund ALL kinds of Classical Music, I only used Chamber Music as an example, but Glenn jumped on it- why, I am not sure- maybe he thought my other arguments were sound enough that he had to find something to pick on. The NEA does not fund much Heavy Metal, I am pretty sure- that is a commercial art form (and I certainly believe it IS art) which finds its own funding in the marketplace.

The US government does fund pretty much all types of classical music, though, from Chamber Music, to Symphonies, to Opera, along with other types of less commercial music, including folk, ethnic, jazz, and so on.

And I think that is a good thing.

The commercial marketplace supports itself just fine- I have no problem finding the latest John Legend, or Toby Keith or Lil Wayne song, in fact, I work hard to avoid them.

However, there is a lot art, music, theater, dance, and other arts that are not so commercial. This is the work that the government often helps see the light of day. The strict right wing libertarian viewpoint is that since Classical Music is only something like 1% of the overall market, we should just allow it to die.
After all, if consumers wont spend money on it, it cant be worth anything, right?

Meanwhile, rap music has been number one in sales, radio play, awards one, and popularity for at least ten years now.

Now me, I take the radical viewpoint that the government should support some arts that are not the most popular, and most commercial.
Including, of course, non-commercial musics like classical and jazz, along with non-commercial arts of many types.

Any time a human being is involved, there is an "agenda".
But Government arts funding, far from enforcing an agenda, tends to be a levelling agent, funding a wide range of artworks and performances, that even out any market enforced distortions.
Many things you would never see in a major museum, if they only showed the stuff that sold lots of tickets, is supported by NEA grants- and that includes art that is so wide ranging there is something everyone here likes, and also something everyone here hates.

Which is as it should be.
If a museum isnt showing something you hate, they are doing it wrong.

[evaldart]

Ries, why do you always have to be right dead in the middle...championing the "good sense" aspects of everything. Always righteously accepting. Have you got any fire? Glenn damn sure does, and so does Chris. This is a discussion board made up of hopefully impassioned personalities...not fact-givers and mothering finger-wagging. Your "degenerating" is another man's flourishing, so its not wrong. Its in you, because I can feel it on the edges of your posts...you DO have your biases and prejudices...we all do.

[GlennT]

The core of my arguement has absolutely nothing to do with what I like or don't like in art. Most of those side issues were added for fun and color to this dull topic.

My issue is based on the idea of limiting the role of the federal government to the most basic elements as delineated back in the founding days of this country. What set this nation apart from all others in human history was the concept of limited government, whose main role was to protect and defend the rights of its citizens to pursue their dreams, learning from their failures or reaping the benefits of their success. And it was not a cold-hearted activity, as many charitable organizations, mostly but not all church sponsored, filled the gaps to help back on their feet (rather than to keep them dependant) those in need.

My issue is not to say, "Tom and Mary are getting a big slice of the pie, so I think I should get some too, especially since I just want an itsy bit of it."
My issue is rather to say " Eat your vegetables and bake your own pie if you want some. You'll grow stronger."

The side issue, away from the general principle of over-reaching government, is the cultural one. I would be interested to hear other people's opinions about who they think would make a great secretary of the arts, what that person's job should be, how much support staff should they need, how large of a budget, and what sort of oversight and review to see that the money is well spent. (How would that even be determined?) As a compromise position, I would definitely be willing to ceed a secretary of arts position if we eliminated the secretary of education position and put schools under more local control.

[grommet]

yeah, okay, I nomionate Ries' clone for God of the Arts, or whatever, precisely because he sits in the middle of the fence, prepared to share pie with whomever is cutting a flavor he appreciates in some way. yeah, it's opportunistic, but the goal is as much pie/ art as possible, so why limit?

If I was supportive of a dog-eat-dog world I'd go with Glenn. The church folk know all about manipulating things, so your concerns about an all inclusive government making agencies to help people function is just... funny.

[StevenW]

Hmm,... "Art Minister"...

Hmm,... Chamber-Metal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmDTO...eature=related

Okay, I'll take the #2 biggie-size please.

[GlennT]

Originally Posted by grommet;71586If I was supportive of a dog-eat-dog world I'd go with Glenn. The church folk know all about manipulating things, so your concerns about an all [B

inclusive[/b] government making agencies to help people function is just... funny.

My vison is for a man-help-man world, not a dog-eat-dog world. My world vision also has corrective lenses to account for human imperfection. So, if I acknowledge that "church folk" know how to manipulate things, I don't just make a negative stereotype about "the church", I also acknowledge that they do much good, and so I encourage and support such efforts. A huge difference is that the work and involvement with a church is entirely voluntary, whereas the government has the power of law and force of arms to compell behavior. So, if you don't like what a particular church is doing, leave it and go to another or none. If you don't like what the government is doing, leave Europe and start an new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition...oh yeah, we did that!

Likewise, despite the attempt of anatomist1 to make it seem as though I think of government as "evil", I actually analyze what is good and what is bad about the way government runs and react accordingly. Just like a church, the government is composed of people. Some people want to serve, others want to be served. Some people, when given power, either from church or state, use that power to further an agenda which may be entirely or mostly positive. Others use that power to manipulate and control people, or to enrich themselves.

I don't see the level of education in America having improved since the federal government took it upon themselves to serve that role. It would be instructive to compare what a highschool graduate needed to know 100 years or more ago versus today.

Most private schools, operating on a fraction of the public school budgets, have students who not only kick ass on test scores compared to public schools, but learn to problem solve and consider issues free from the ever-increasing indoctrination of "politically-correct" thinking that gets rammed into the curricula.

Liberalism, which seems to be what we are dealing with here, appeals to the emotions because of its "good intentions". So, start another government program based on good intentions, and it will continue to grow and evolve and become its own self-sustaining entity with little accountability for results. I prefer to go with what works.

[evaldart]

Damn Steven that was some "classical" that I could indeed get into...I remember Therion also from the nineties but havent found anything new by them in some time. Its so true that the skills and virtuosity often developed and displayed in genres other people might call "butt rock" exceeds in presence and potential many traditional classical instruments.

I vote for Cheese to run the Art politicking show, mainly because he's very evenly and widely aware of the "current". He, knows whats up right now...

[Ries]

Way back in the 1970's, I used to have a character I would do in public occasionally called "ArtGod". Dont have any pictures, but I would dress up pretty funny- I had a nice 2' diameter aluminum hat made from a streetlamp shade, among other things.
I had two rubber stamps-
"this is art"
and
"this is not art"

and I would make judgements, and stamp the item accordingly.
Did it at Bumbershoot, a big arts festival in Seattle, one year, hundreds of people would come up to me and ask for a judgement.

And I still have very strong opinions about what I, personally, like and dislike- but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not the US would benefit from having all EXISTING arts funding under one management, and whether we, as a nation, would benefit from a coherent national arts policy..

Oh, and Glenn- you are really going off the deep end, with that "government in schools" thing- before the US instituted government schooling, most people were illiterate. It wasnt a choice of government schools or private schools, it was government schools, or NO schools, and child labor.

The US public schools made us the country we are today.

But if you prefer, there are still some countries you could move to that dont have public schools- lovely places like the Congo or Bangladesh, with near universal illiteracy rates, and, as a bonus, in the Congo, no taxes, no state funded arts, no public health programs, no meddling whatsoever in your life-heck, no LAWS!
just make sure you have more bullets than the other guy, and you can do WHATEVER you want.

[GlennT]

Originally Posted by Ries

Oh, and Glenn- you are really going off the deep end, with that "government in schools" thing- before the US instituted government schooling, most people were illiterate. It wasnt a choice of government schools or private schools, it was government schools, or NO schools, and child labor.

The US public schools made us the country we are today.

Where did you get this notion? The literacy rate among white americans in 1840 was 97%, which is much higher than current rates. Did you ever read the letters written during the civil war by it's common soliders? Far more eloquent than today, even prior to text messaging.

Use your federally mandated education to read carefully, please. I was not addressing public schools per se, but FEDERAL control of schools. I did not mean that point to be so subtle as to escape notice. Before the mid-20th century we were working with state directed public schools with no federal involvement.

Now that perhaps that has been cleared up, I can respond to the rest of the post. The "ArtGod" role is hilarious. Thanks for sharing that.

Can you further explain what a "coherent national arts policy" would be? I know the Soviet Union had something like that, which was good and bad. It was a good way to keep alive the tradition and good training of figurative art and impressionist use of color. It was bad in that the end product was directed towards producing government-sponsored propoganda. But of course, that could never happen here, since our good intentions and benevolence would prevent it.

[Ries]

The school attendance rate in the 1800's was usually below 50%, and that was, as you point out, for white males.

The federal education act was passed in 1870.

Railing against it is kind of like railing against income taxes- you may be right, you may be wrong, but your side lost that fight over 100 years ago.

As for a coherent national arts policy- well, thats when you hire smart people, and they look at ALL the spending, requests for spending, needs, and wants of all the arts in the country, and then they assign priorities, and act accordingly.

Most countries do this.
Not only with the arts, but most countries, especially places like Japan or Germany, have national industrial policies as well.

The alternative is not NO spending- much as you would like that, its just not possible. The alternative is disorganized, wasteful, erratic spending with no overall coordination.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by Ries

The alternative is disorganized, wasteful, erratic spending with no overall coordination.

You mean like Congress?

[GlennT]

At least, with Ries plan, the bridge to nowhere gets some decorative railings.

[grommet]

Originally Posted by GlennT

At least, with Ries plan, the bridge to nowhere gets some decorative railings.

No, bad location. Now if you put it in a better spot & still have it go nowhere, then we're talkin'. It won't need decoration. You can bring your own doilies if it makes you feel better.


(Ries, I figured you were side-saddle on the fence or there'd be evidence of a most painful wedgie.)

[Duck]

Originally Posted by grommet

Your leap will land you in a puddle. If that's your goal for off-topic, go for it.

...

Nahh…..I’m good
But I like this new phrase..”We’re Civilized”
…go ahead a say it out loud………..

...alright now say it again really really loud but not quite like yelling or screaming….and then tell me you didn’t bust a gut laughing……..

[grommet]

Originally Posted by Duck

Nahh…..I’m good
But I like this new phrase..”We’re Civilized”
…go ahead a say it out loud………..

...alright now say it again really really loud but not quite like yelling or screaming….and then tell me you didn’t bust a gut laughing……..

Nahh... I'm good.
It seems like something you'd say while standing around a keg with you buddies. More fun in a group.
The things that amuse me personally just make others veer away, like making "snow angels" in the grass in summer.

[craigktx]

Originally Posted by grommet

Nahh... I'm good. . More fun in a group.
The things that amuse me personally just make others veer away, like making "snow angels" in the grass in summer.

do you frame your shorts and call it art?
thats where the money would go.
Nahh... i'm good.

[grommet]

No, ya frame the chunk of grass, or put the sod all around a piece of foam insulstion, put a mess o' small tent stakes through & stand the whole shmear up... Or you can just enjoy the impression in front of the fancy place whose lawn you plopped down upon.

[Tired Iron]

Grommet , I'll bet you're a hoot to hang out with!

[grommet]

Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion, but thanks.

[GlennT]

I'd say a hoot and a holler!

[Ries]

I been framing my shorts and calling it art for years now.
Yet to get any government money for it, but I have sold quite a bit of "undergarment art" in galleries.

[grommet]

Interesting commentary with the "dainties.
Looks like you have all the fancy machines too...

[evaldart]

So THATS where you keep your sense of humor, Ries...in your drawers. See, the shiny metal guys can get away with this type of thing. No one wants to imagine the rendered tighty-whiteys of our "natural", "raw" or "earthy" members.