[Muzman]

The irony being that government funding of the arts usually comes around because private interest is too unlikely to support the dissenting voices or critial aspects of the arts. Precisely because they are likely to offend sections of the community.
Free expression might be protected by the law, but few are game enough to fund it.

[Ragnarok]

Well, my opinion is museums should be public. Otherway people with no money won't be able of discovering art, that thing we all love.

[kerosene]

I find it weird that you people (somewhat artistic here) find this thing so easily offending. What the heck should we go and see if questioning things is too much?

I agree with the NY artist that most of modern "experimental" stuff is self repeating crap. I have seen exhibitions with artist's blood foaming in kitchen mixers, pee and semen in balloons and so on. Well I don't find it offending but purely stupid, cheesy and obvious rubish. "shocking" is so cheep and done so many times. I still think that this christ photos were not that vain. It was not poo on christ but turning the basic ideas of christ upside down. If it shocks people then think why it is? Because they can't think things other way round. Well it is not really anything super new or very brilliant but still there is a clue that most of people understand.

The public funding is one really difficult issue. If publicly paid art is not to annoy anyone, not to offend anyone and not to raise any questions where do we end? I wouldn't like to pay for semen exhibitions but still I find it better that variety of art gets display instead that everything is non message carrying pre-eaten soul-less rubbish.

Who is the best critic then? Often I don't think the average guy or the big public. If the "major" would buy in all exhibitions or all the people would vote I bet we would see mostly really lame stuff.

How can you value an exhibitions value to community? Should only nice things be showed?


well that was just my 2 pennies.

heikki anttila
--
www.projectkerosene.com

[kerosene]

heikki anttila
--
www.projectkerosene.com

[This message has been edited by kerosene (edited February 27, 2001).]

[eureka]

Great topic!

I love art and I'm not a Christian but government funded art is bogus. We have the right to free speech, not the right to be heard. When I practice my free speech you are not obligated to do anything but not interfere with my ranting. You can ignore me or yell in my face. We can both swing our arms as long as we don't hit each other in the nose.

When the government gives an artist money to make a political statement I'm obligated to pay for it.That's not fair. That's not equal treatment. It also puts the government in a position of promoting hate speech.

[eureka]

The value to the community is irrelevent when the Ministry of Culture dictates what will be promoted. The citizens have no choice in the matter. The value is only measured by a few, not society as a whole.

In the U.S. we can say and do whatever we want. It's a protected right so shock art isn't going to be stopped. What should be stopped is making me pay for other people's political speech. Or perhaps, in the interest of fairness, my neigbors should give their money to me so that I can express my distaste and hatred for Jews, blacks, and Fins.

[AliasMoze]

Filtering out hackish "shock" material from new inventive art is, indeed, a tough thing to do. But gov't funding of arts is, I think, crucial. Our culture depends on the constant exploration of new ideas, and gov't funding is sometimes the only way to get out art which has no commerical value. Without it, the only art that gets exhibited is commerce-based. That's a frightening thought.

The solution is to get someone who knows art, has seen lots of art, to police the material and decide what gets an exhibit. As I understand it, this is how museums function. Adding to a politician the ability to censor a museum is cultural suicide.

[eureka]

I totally agree with you. Government control of art is cultural suicide. Any government that dictates art to it's citizens should be smacked in the head and sent to it's room to think about what it's done.

Of course by accepting taxpayer money the artist or museum is accepting political involvment. It's only fair that the concerns of the people paying should be addressed. It can't be any other way unless you offer everyone the exact same benefit.

Anyway, as I was saying, if the decision of what art to support was to be taken out of society and given to government to dole out as the "experts" see fit it would still be political. Just as in the case of the show in New York it comes down to which political view would be promoted over others. Which in my opinion is like making the people who paid for it and are against it bend over and grab their ankles and expect them to be happy about it.

I've never been partial to experts in government. Apart from being annoited by someone in government, what would make a person expert enough to decide for the rest of us what art would be shown? Since art has to be qualified, "experts" would have different opinions on what is art and which artists should be shown. How would they be expected to determine which art is needed in different areas? How can a few know what the general public want? I don't think centralized art would work any better than a centralized economy.

Luckily for us society (or culture) is bigger than government so there is no way in a free society we could commit cultural suicide. By continuing to rely on private grants and donations artists will have all the freedom they can expect. In the U.S. that's how most fine art is funded, privately. Most importantly people are free to choose. Freedom of choice, a great concept.

How about a National Endowment for the Arts that is privately funded. That way artists are free to voice their own politics and you are free to support them without interference.

[Muzman]

I dunno where you get the idea that government appointed grants managers are likely to be any different than the privately funded variety. Heck, if anything the government funded ones might feel they have the backing to be a little more daring from time to time rather than being totally subjected to the whims of philanthopy and the general cowardice of the marketplace (although the whims and cowardice of the electorate isn't much better usually).
This talk of taxpayer rights is silly, taxpayers don't have a direct say over where their money goes precisely because then every taxpayer would have to become a financial adviser for the government. Seems like a convaluted waste of energy when there could be a couple of officials to do it instead.
Nah; there's roads and police services being funded all the time across town that are of no direct benefit or harm to the folks on the other side. Likewise there's art being made that not everyone is going to like. There's lobby groups and political parties being funded that some folks would like burnt at the stake too! *gasp*
The only argument here is that politicians should stay the hell out of appointed art bodies. Yeah it's hard to imagine they don't have some leverage, but money men fold pretty fast when the heat is turned up too.

Yeah, it's a thorny problem. But folks seem to be saying that private funding would remove the issue when there wasn't grounds for complaint in the first place. Demand the independance of art bodies however they are funded.

[Mozeman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Muzman:
This talk of taxpayer rights is silly, taxpayers don't have a direct say over where their money goes precisely because then every taxpayer would have to become a financial adviser for the government

---

I totally agree. Why should art be the ONLY area in which citizens have direct say over government funding.

quote

Quote:

But folks seem to be saying that private funding would remove the issue when there wasn't grounds for complaint in the first place.

Why should Chrysler get funding but not the arts. It's both humorous and tragic that these people feel that art should be completely privately funded but not huge corporate conglomerations.

[eureka]

Muzzman, you are absolutely correct. Private grants managers would have just as many predjudices that government managers would have. The difference is that there are countless more private managers each with differing artistic vision which encourages diversity in art.

And you are right again. Taxpayers don't have a direct say over precisely where their tax money goes. That would be a pain in the ass. Of course there is some difference between road funding and art funding. No group is being attacked by government sponsored speech. That's the difference. Police benefit everyone Sponsoring one person's speech while excluding others only benefits the person getting the money. And of course art lovers who dislike Catholics.

Lastly, you are right again. You're sharp. Part of our tax money is going to the Republicans. I'm just as against that as I am with forcing me to pay for someone elses political speech. It's the same thing except they hate different groups and we hold one higher because it becomes untouchable because it's called art.