The NEA is in trouble and the liberals are whining
- Thread starter Oatka
- Start date
You can't. But I don't want to keep big government and defund the NEA. I'd rather defund the BATF first. 
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
David Roberson
New member
My own choice: Defund them both. The government has no business subsidizing either art or the oppression of its citizens.
What if we simply cut the NEA out of existence entirely, and do the same with any kind of writing grants . . . . . and then cut some more in other areas as I'm sure would be necessary . . . . and then apply the same principle to art galleries and publishing houses as we do to religious organizations? The power to tax is the power to regulate, the power to fund is more so, therefore make art as tax-free as religion! I can imagine that this might make it easy for a few "robber-barons" of the art world to dominate even more than they do now, but if that could be overcome (or endured) then why not?
Just thinking out loud.
Just thinking out loud.
I once read a nice article on this subject, written by Davey Crocket. The gist of the article was that since tax money does not belong to each congress person personally, the idea of doing good to help someone out (contributing to charity) using these tax dollars is easier to do than if it were there own money. Since it is not their money they are giving away, they do not think much about the consequences of where that money comes from. This concept is one of the reasons our taxes are so high. They can see the person before them pleading for help, but they never see the person who is trying to support eight kids on a meager salary, from whom those taxes are coming from. It is far easier for them to feel good about themselves for helping some person or charity out than it is to see the food they are stealing from a taxpayer who can ill afford to pay those taxes. This is why I am opposed to any government welfare of either individuals, corporate or as in this case the Endowment of the Arts.
I think I made a copy of the article on my home computer. If I find it I will post it here. I think most would find it very thought provoking.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
I think I made a copy of the article on my home computer. If I find it I will post it here. I think most would find it very thought provoking.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Sesame Street was funded by PBS, yet I don't see the licensing and revenues from the commercial side being put back into the system. People are getting rich selling lunch boxes with big bird on it and the ice show should be paying fees to the govt who put up the money to develop the images. If the govt funds it, the govt owns it, yet somehow some people are getting rich off of it.
It appears I am mistaken.
William R. Wilburn
New member
"A state supported artist is an incompetent whore." -R.A. Heinlein
From: A Stranger In A Strange Land"
Kinda says it all, doesn't it?
From: A Stranger In A Strange Land"
Kinda says it all, doesn't it?
On the idea of defunding an agency/program (NEA and BATF used as examples above):
Every year as the state legislature goes into session, I call or email my state senator, who knows me. I tell him my only request is that he find some, any, just one, state governmental agency/ongoing program, and that he take it out behind the barn and kill it with an ax. It doesn't ever happen.
Unfortunately, government programs seem to be like Dracula or the Werewolf, and can apparently only be killed using extraordinary, near supernatural, means. The growth of government caused by never-dying agencies/programs proliferating is killing the Republic. Everyone can't live off of the government's teat - someone must be out there actually creating some wealth. At this rate, Atlas will begin to Shrug sooner rather than later.
Every year as the state legislature goes into session, I call or email my state senator, who knows me. I tell him my only request is that he find some, any, just one, state governmental agency/ongoing program, and that he take it out behind the barn and kill it with an ax. It doesn't ever happen.
Unfortunately, government programs seem to be like Dracula or the Werewolf, and can apparently only be killed using extraordinary, near supernatural, means. The growth of government caused by never-dying agencies/programs proliferating is killing the Republic. Everyone can't live off of the government's teat - someone must be out there actually creating some wealth. At this rate, Atlas will begin to Shrug sooner rather than later.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I humbly ask your forgiveness for the misquote.[/quote]You are forgiven. Go forth and sin no more.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Let the people fund NEA directly. Make a checkoff box on the 10-40 form. All those that want to contribute from their refund can contribute if they so desire. If you owe the IRS money add another dollar in support of the arts.
Personally I'd like to see funding cut entirely. Let those who want it support it.
Personally I'd like to see funding cut entirely. Let those who want it support it.
Agent Orange
New member
Gorth,
To quote you, "great art has ALWAYS been publicly funded." I'm sure you know that's false. Be careful when using words like always, never, everyone, no one, etc.
First of all, who determines what is "great art." You? A government commission? Art critics? Who is to receive the government funding? How is that determined? Will it be politically favored groups? People with connections? Oftentimes "great art" is not recognized as such during the artist's lifetime. People sometimes cannot see the timelessness or genius in a particular work, so it doesn't get funding (either public or private). That doesn't mean that the "art" will not be created. Any dedicated artist will continue his work merely because he or she loves art and not because he gets a check from the gov't. Van Gogh is an example of someone who was ignored in his time. He painted for money, yes, but also for art's sake. The art comes before the funding, not the other way around as you have stated. Art will be created because it is in our nature. From the first cro-magnon cavemen painters (who received no gov't funding) to the modern day computer artists, art will continue to unfold in myriad forms from gifted expressionists the world over.
Mozart and Beethoven had several benefactors.
They were part of the aristocracy of their time (dukes, counts, princes, wealthy merchants). I don't think you could call these benefactors "governments". It is absurd to compare the feudal kingdoms and oligarchies of the past with the democratic free market systems of the present. Two to three hundred years ago the only source of artistic funding had to come from the Catholic Church or the aristocracy. Your average serf had to survive on what food he could raise or subsistence wages. That is not the situation today, where world citizens spend hundreds of billions on entertainment (art is entertainment: cinema, literature, sculpture, visual arts). Further, both of these geniuses (Ludwig and Wolfgang) derived income from public concerts, teaching pupils, and music publishing sales. Comparing these men with modern musicians is quite a stretch. The music industry of today is a multibillion dollar industry with all sorts of record labels and new artists emerging by the hundreds.
You don't mention literature, but I can't recall any of the great works of literature receiving public funding. And certainly the cinematic artists of today don't need gov't. funding. There are plenty of would be Hollywood moguls willing to finance all manner of movie projects, (besides the actual moguls). I support independent films and "art films" by buying a ticket. I see about a dozen foreign films, documentaries, and art films every year here in my independent hometown movie art houses.
When you mention Michelangelo and Da Vinci I am reluctant to say that they too received public funding. This is a gray area because the Catholic Church of the 1500's was a political force with papal properties and armies. Was the Catholic Church a form of gov't.?
As you know, Michelangelo received his vast majority of commissions from a couple of Popes and Cardinals plus the Medici's (who had ties to the church). The church commissioned the Pieta, the statue of Moses, and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (among many others).
Also, the Catholic Church was the first institution to commission and support choral music, which led to Opera and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. (You speak of Churches not paying property taxes, but ,oh, what beautiful Churches there are in Europe. They are architectural artistic achievements. The Cathedral of Notre Dame is an architectural masterpiece which took hundreds of years to complete. St. Peter's Basilica in Rome is also exquisite).
The thing I like best about the Catholic Church (as a lapsed Catholic) is the great architecture and art. The Catholic Church has perhaps the greatest collection of art in the world. However, as a true art lover (music, visual, cinematic, architectural, and literature) the government should not be in the business of picking what art the people should subsidize. Let the billions of people in the world, with their trillions of dollars in discretionary income, decide for themselves which art to support. Because, as I have stated, just because it is not supported, (by either private citizens or the gov't.) doesn't mean that it won't be created, it just means it won't have a paying audience (so the artist has to get a JOB!!! to subsidize his passion. You ever hear of actresses who waitress while they audition?)
[This message has been edited by Agent Orange (edited March 28, 2000).]
To quote you, "great art has ALWAYS been publicly funded." I'm sure you know that's false. Be careful when using words like always, never, everyone, no one, etc.
First of all, who determines what is "great art." You? A government commission? Art critics? Who is to receive the government funding? How is that determined? Will it be politically favored groups? People with connections? Oftentimes "great art" is not recognized as such during the artist's lifetime. People sometimes cannot see the timelessness or genius in a particular work, so it doesn't get funding (either public or private). That doesn't mean that the "art" will not be created. Any dedicated artist will continue his work merely because he or she loves art and not because he gets a check from the gov't. Van Gogh is an example of someone who was ignored in his time. He painted for money, yes, but also for art's sake. The art comes before the funding, not the other way around as you have stated. Art will be created because it is in our nature. From the first cro-magnon cavemen painters (who received no gov't funding) to the modern day computer artists, art will continue to unfold in myriad forms from gifted expressionists the world over.
Mozart and Beethoven had several benefactors.
They were part of the aristocracy of their time (dukes, counts, princes, wealthy merchants). I don't think you could call these benefactors "governments". It is absurd to compare the feudal kingdoms and oligarchies of the past with the democratic free market systems of the present. Two to three hundred years ago the only source of artistic funding had to come from the Catholic Church or the aristocracy. Your average serf had to survive on what food he could raise or subsistence wages. That is not the situation today, where world citizens spend hundreds of billions on entertainment (art is entertainment: cinema, literature, sculpture, visual arts). Further, both of these geniuses (Ludwig and Wolfgang) derived income from public concerts, teaching pupils, and music publishing sales. Comparing these men with modern musicians is quite a stretch. The music industry of today is a multibillion dollar industry with all sorts of record labels and new artists emerging by the hundreds.
You don't mention literature, but I can't recall any of the great works of literature receiving public funding. And certainly the cinematic artists of today don't need gov't. funding. There are plenty of would be Hollywood moguls willing to finance all manner of movie projects, (besides the actual moguls). I support independent films and "art films" by buying a ticket. I see about a dozen foreign films, documentaries, and art films every year here in my independent hometown movie art houses.
When you mention Michelangelo and Da Vinci I am reluctant to say that they too received public funding. This is a gray area because the Catholic Church of the 1500's was a political force with papal properties and armies. Was the Catholic Church a form of gov't.?
As you know, Michelangelo received his vast majority of commissions from a couple of Popes and Cardinals plus the Medici's (who had ties to the church). The church commissioned the Pieta, the statue of Moses, and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (among many others).
Also, the Catholic Church was the first institution to commission and support choral music, which led to Opera and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. (You speak of Churches not paying property taxes, but ,oh, what beautiful Churches there are in Europe. They are architectural artistic achievements. The Cathedral of Notre Dame is an architectural masterpiece which took hundreds of years to complete. St. Peter's Basilica in Rome is also exquisite).
The thing I like best about the Catholic Church (as a lapsed Catholic) is the great architecture and art. The Catholic Church has perhaps the greatest collection of art in the world. However, as a true art lover (music, visual, cinematic, architectural, and literature) the government should not be in the business of picking what art the people should subsidize. Let the billions of people in the world, with their trillions of dollars in discretionary income, decide for themselves which art to support. Because, as I have stated, just because it is not supported, (by either private citizens or the gov't.) doesn't mean that it won't be created, it just means it won't have a paying audience (so the artist has to get a JOB!!! to subsidize his passion. You ever hear of actresses who waitress while they audition?)
[This message has been edited by Agent Orange (edited March 28, 2000).]