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: Mao II who wrote (285)	1/11/2001 9:27:58 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi M2, There were so many discussions here last night. I feel like I've walked into a breakfast buffet. <g> I liked your point here: One reason we can speak of the quality of a Cezanne or a Matisse is because we have been able to see the work first hand in museums. That's largely because public money has gone to bolster the infrastructure supporting the arts in this country. This is a terribly important point, IMO, not only because it speaks to the fact that our support of the arts goes not just to the artists but to the general populace, but also because in allowing the poplace to have exposure to art, the goverment is acting at its most benevolent. It is distributing, without prejudice the fruits of society's labors. This point too: most of the great European art prior to the 18th century was subsidized by the Catholic church. And most artists of any century attached themselves to patrons who provided subsidies and dictated subject matter. is so sadly clear when one visits the great art musuems in Europe. Each time I've gone to the Uffizi I'm struck by "what ifs", what if artists we encouraged to express themselves beyond the Catholic theme?

To: Mao II who wrote (285)	1/11/2001 6:28:46 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 82486

I'm not familiar with the artists in question, so it is difficult to comment there. Is it necessarily true that their works would never have been produced without government support? I live in a developing country, and frequent an active art circle; we often receive subsidized visits from subsidized artists from the US, Europe, Australia, under the guise of cultural exchange. The visiting artists, in my view, often compare rather poorly with the local ones, many of whom struggle under conditions that few Americans could imagine, let alone endure. There is a self-indulgence, an arrogance, a sense of ordained entitlement in many of the "developed world" artists I meet, and in their work, that rubs me the wrong way. A lot of this is, of course, subjective prejudice. Using public money to develop the art infrastructure, make it easier for artists to exhibit their work, and provide art education seems to me to be a better use of public money than funding individual artists. This is because funding artists necessarily requires a judgement of whose work deserves funding, and I'm not convinced that this is a judgement that government is well qualified to make. I should add that while I am not in principle in favor of government support for artists, it's not something that I get all irate about, and greet with implacable opposition. The money is irrelevant from a budgetary perspective, a gnat bite on an elephant's ass, and could probably be spent on worse things. I suspect that the energy with which some conservatives oppose such a minor expenditure stems mainly from anger at having to give money to people who are almost invariably toward the liberal end of the political spectrum.