Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (256)	1/10/2001 10:48:35 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't believe that the government has the right to make the decision to spend my money that way. I did not give society the authority to spend my money to support people who are better at soliciting grants than they are at creating art (at least what I consider art). If you want to support an artist...great!!! Throw some money at them. It's not like there is a right or wrong answer. What will be better about society if the NEA did not support artists? Well, for starters, I could throw the dollars that I save from the NEA grants to something that I believe that is truly beneficial to society...like education. The fact is, not many artist receive NEA grants, if the grants ceased to exist, the art community would have minimal impact. But the real point is simply that it is not the government's role to be supporting the arts. It is the role of the private citizen. The private citizens taking on the role of encouraging artistic expression by supporting the arts instead of expecting the government to do it, will be a tremendous benefit to society all by itself. I believe that the more we expect the government to be responsible for things that the private citizen should be responsible for, the more we are controlled by the government. Further, I believe that once the government gives an artist money, I have the right to say what that artist can express. After all, I paid for it. And if the government is using my money to fund artists, dammit, I want some paintings of dogs playing poker. For the moment, let's assume that you don't like paintings of dogs playing poker, if the NEA decides to offer me a grant to paint dogs playing poker, are you going to be supportive? (I do paint and I even had one show where I sold a couple of paintings).

To: epicure who wrote (256)	1/11/2001 6:53:35 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

What will be better about society if the NEA did not support artists? I know that you have a pragmatic view of government services so I'll spare you the Constitutional stuff and offer a common sense response. The amount of money the NEA awards as grants is, as you said, a pittance in Washington terms. I don't have any particular knowledge of this program and I'm not sufficiently interested to research it, but I think it's safe to say they spend more than a pittance to give out their pittance. There are the criteria and the advisory groups and the whole grant process. And on and on. A couple of posters have mentioned the problems with determining criteria. Then there's the potential for gaming the system. But most of all there's the fact that, rightly or wrongly, this program really ticks off a lot of people. It's a real hot button. Many of these people have guns and a bad attitude. Lots of them write letters. Do you know how many feds with a six figure salary typically pore over each constituent letter and its response? You don't want to know. Are there really deserving artists that get support? Maybe some. Does their art enrich us all? Maybe some. Could they get support elsewhere. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know. Probably. The bottom line, to me, is that we have a program that may be marginally effective, is probably quite inefficient, may or may not be necessary, and really ticks off a lot of people with guns and bad attitudes. I don't recall if the NEA was on Tim McVeigh's or the Unabomber's list of grievances or not, but do we really want to risk that for so little return? Repercussions of that magnitude are unlikely, but the animus this program creates contributes to the divisiveness that really hurts us, unnecessarily IMO. I don't know if a majority of people support this program or not. Maybe someone's done a survey. I'd bet that most people either hate it or are pretty indifferent. After all, it's a small program and doesn't cost each of us much. In tax dollars, that is. What's the harm? You've talked before about the value of redistribution of wealth as a means of avoiding unrest. I suggest that this is similar. Why contribute to the vitriol? Why not spend our tax dollars instead on those programs for which we have a reasonable consensus? Your question was how would society be better without this program. I'd prefer peace and quiet to another piece of performance art. Karen