Is It Art?

[One Eyed Jack]

What about those who don't want or require the services of a military?

They can always move to another country. Of course they may have to pay taxes that go to the military there.

Why should they have to pay for it?

Because they want to live in a society that's protected by military might?

Why should anyone have to pay for anything they don't want?

That's a good question.

The answer is because the society they live in needs it whether any individual in that society wants it or not.

We need art?

Yeah, that's a really clever response.

Thanks.

It's a service beyond your capacity to comprehend.

Try me.

Yeah, but no one's going to ask you.

That's okay -- I've been known to offer my unwanted opinion before. It's certainly not going to bother me doing it again.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

And what kind of a selfish idiot thinks it's wrong to offend him?

I think you've just described a liberal.

 

[Granite]

Just get the Government out of the subsidizing biz. Socialism's killing us.

Pretty much. Get the heck out!

 

[cattyfan]

more "clever" art...

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) __
Christo, who specializes in public art pieces so big they can be seen from space, is moving forward with plans to drape a giant canopy over the Arkansas River.

Buoyed by the success of ``The Gates, Central Park,'' which opened in New York in February, Christo and his wife, Jeanne-Claude, are coming to Colorado to renew their work on ``Over the River,'' a project to cover a 6-mile stretch of the A rkansas with huge pieces of clear fabric.

The project was conceived nearly a decade ago. If the artists can get past considerable permit hurdles, it would take several more years to construct.

Christo and Jeanne-Claude will discuss the proposed work at Salida's Steam Plant Theater Performing Arts Center on Aug. 1. They also will meet with state and local officials, part of the permit process that must be completed before physical work can begin.

The couple have traveled the world for 30 years, creating massive, temporary public installations. Previous projects include wrapping the Reichstag in Germany and surrounding 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with fabric. The projects typically cost millions of dollars and take years to assemble. ``Over the River'' would consist of large fabric pieces suspended 10 feet to 23 feet above the Arkansas on a stretch roughly 20 miles west of Canon City. The canopy would be constructed in sections to leave room for bridges, boulders and other natural features.

The river would remain accessible to rafters, hikers and wildlife. ``It's going to bring a bazillion people here, and outfitters are going to be beside themselves figuring out how to get all those people on the river,'' said 22-year river veteran Carlos Grashof, head boatman for River Runners' Royal Gorge office.

 

[Granite]

Hey, maybe it'll help the local economy.

 

[PureX]

Keep in mind that the news media is only going to report on art that it knows people will scoff at. For every one controversial work of art that causes such foolish reaction from the press and public, there are hundreds that are wonderful and sublime. Just drop by your local museum and you'll see lots of them.

 

[cattyfan]

Keep in mind that the news media is only going to report on art that it knows people will scoff at. For every one controversial work of art that causes such foolish reaction from the press and public, there are hundreds that are wonderful and sublime. Just drop by your local museum and you'll see lots of them.

the press account above gives no reaction of its own as to whether this project is "foolish" or not...and the only person from the public who is quoted seems enthusiastic.

Christo, the artist, thrives on this type of coverage...that's part of the purpose in his enormous endeavors. If he didn't enjoy the coverage, he would be working on small scale pieces for a gallery exhibit instead of draping the world with various textiles.

I don't understand the point of the current planned project...but I do see some potential for environmental problems from this...basic things like rainfall for the covered areas will be obstructed by this.

 

[PureX]

the press account above gives no reaction of its own as to whether this project is "foolish" or not...and the only person from the public who is quoted seems enthusiastic.

I was addressing the more general relationship between art and the media and the public.

Christo, the artist, thrives on this type of coverage...that's part of the purpose in his enormous endeavors. If he didn't enjoy the coverage, he would be working on small scale pieces for a gallery exhibit instead of draping the world with various textiles.

Yes, though it's not so much that he "enjoys the coverage" as that his artwork is about the social difficulties involved in and created by the artistic endeavor.

I don't understand the point of the current planned project...but I do see some potential for environmental problems from this...basic things like rainfall for the covered areas will be obstructed by this.

Art involves taking risks. All important endeavors in life, do.

 

[HisLight]

Keep in mind that the news media is only going to report on art that it knows people will scoff at. For every one controversial work of art that causes such foolish reaction from the press and public, there are hundreds that are wonderful and sublime. Just drop by your local museum and you'll see lots of them.

Media as a whole is biased against art?

I agree that there is wonderful stuff and awful stuff out there in the art world. The problem is that everyone has a different opinion about what constitutes good and bad.

I think the best and most efficient way to poll what is good and what is bad is to use the free market process to make the determination. Certainly the government isn't less biased about art than is the media.

If art is about taking risks why shouldn't there be some financial risk as well?

 

[PureX]

Media as a whole is biased against art?

They aren't biased against art, they're just whores for meaningless titillation. Any story that they think will stir up the viewers in some way, no matter how foolish or irrelevant, will always make it on the air - especially if it comes with pictures that can be spun into a sound bite.

I agree that there is wonderful stuff and awful stuff out there in the art world. The problem is that everyone has a different opinion about what constitutes good and bad.

True, but the bigger mistake is that so many people think the purpose of art is to be "good". It's not. The purpose of art is to help us see ourselves and the world around us through the eyes and minds of others, and in ways that we would not otherwise be able to see it, ourselves. People selfishly presume that if they don't "like" a work of art that the art is "bad". They don't realize that art does not exist for them to "like".

I think the best and most efficient way to poll what is good and what is bad is to use the free market process to make the determination. Certainly the government isn't less biased about art than is the media.

The free market system is just a mindless social mechanism. Allowing a mindless social mechanism to decide matters regarding our collective quality of life and of such social necessity and importance as art is stupid. A healthy society needs art whether it's citizens are smart enough to recognize that or not. It's part of the function of our government to support such endeavors as art, science, etc. in spite of (or rather because of) our collective ignorance.

Think of it this way: if the government let us decide if we wanted to give them a bunch of tax money to build roads, most of us would not have given them the money because we're naturally short-sighted and selfish when it comes to money. Yet our society as a whole is far healthier and wealthier because the government made us pay taxes to build the roads in spite of ourselves. Supporting the arts and sciences is a similar situation. Everyone whines and complains about having to pay taxes to support these endeavors because we're naturally short-sighted and selfish about our money. Yet our society is far healthier and wealthier because the government makes us support these endeavors in spite of ourselves.

If art is about taking risks why shouldn't there be some financial risk as well?

Being an artist of any kind in our society involves insane economic risk. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone ever even bothers to try to be an artist in such a money-obsessed culture as ours.

 

[HisLight]

They aren't biased against art, they're just whores for meaningless titillation. Any story that they think will stir up the viewers in some way, no matter how foolish or irrelevant, will always make it on the air - especially if it comes with pictures that can be spun into a sound bite.
True, but the bigger mistake is that so many people think the purpose of art is to be "good". It's not. The purpose of art is to help us see ourselves and the world around us through the eyes and minds of others, and in ways that we would not otherwise be able to see it, ourselves. People selfishly presume that if they don't "like" a work of art that the art is "bad". They don't realize that art does not exist for them to "like".
The free market system is just a mindless social mechanism. Allowing a mindless social mechanism to decide matters regarding our collective quality of life and of such social necessity and importance as art is stupid. A healthy society needs art whether it's citizens are smart enough to recognize that or not. It's part of the function of our government to support such endeavors as art, science, etc. in spite of (or rather because of) our collective ignorance.

Think of it this way: if the government let us decide if we wanted to give them a bunch of tax money to build roads, most of us would not have given them the money because we're naturally short-sighted and selfish when it comes to money. Yet our society as a whole is far healthier and wealthier because the government made us pay taxes to build the roads in spite of ourselves. Supporting the arts and sciences is a similar situation. Everyone whines and complains about having to pay taxes to support these endeavors because we're naturally short-sighted and selfish about our money. Yet our society is far healthier and wealthier because the government makes us support these endeavors in spite of ourselves.
Being an artist of any kind in our society involves insane economic risk. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone ever even bothers to try to be an artist in such a money-obsessed culture as ours.

PUREX...how is it that the collective government is sooo smart when it is made up of individuals? You don't have much faith in their ability alone. Seems to me group think causes more trouble than individual decisions.

As for financial risk, seems to me that people like you are free to support such endeavors.

 

[PureX]

PUREX...how is it that the collective government is sooo smart when it is made up of individuals?

We all know that the government is not all that smart. The only difference is that politicians tend to think of money as "free" because they didn't have to work for it. And because they think this way, they are more willing to spend it on things that the rest of us would not be willing to spend money on. And sometimes that's exactly what we need.

You don't have much faith in their ability alone. Seems to me group think causes more trouble than individual decisions.

Often it does. But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the government really does know better than the individual what needs to be done.

Here's another example: if you had taken a pole in 1968, asking Americans if black people should be givin equal rights and equal access to social systems and benefits, and that these should be guaranteed by legislation, it's very likely that the vast majority of Americans would have said no, and would have been against such equal rights legislation. The truth is that at that time America was still a very racist society, and wanted things to stay that way. Fortunately, our politicians managed to somehow rise above their own petty self-interests at that time long enough to recognize that they had an obligation to the principals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and they passed the equal rights legislation, anyway. And because we were made to play fair even though we didn't want to, we really have become a less racist society, today.

Sometimes the government can do the right thing even when we don't like it. And sometimes they can get us to do the right thing in spite of ourselves.

 

[HisLight]

We all know that the government is not all that smart. The only difference is that politicians tend to think of money as "free" because they didn't have to work for it. And because they think this way, they are more willing to spend it on things that the rest of us would not be willing to spend money on. And sometimes that's exactly what we need.
Often it does. But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the government really does know better than the individual what needs to be done.

Here's another example: if you had taken a pole in 1968, asking Americans if black people should be givin equal rights and equal access to social systems and benefits, and that these should be guaranteed by legislation, it's very likely that the vast majority of Americans would have said no, and would have been against such equal rights legislation. The truth is that at that time America was still a very racist society, and wanted things to stay that way. Fortunately, our politicians managed to somehow rise above their own petty self-interests at that time long enough to recognize that they had an obligation to the principals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and they passed the equal rights legislation, anyway. And because we were made to play fair even though we didn't want to, we really have become a less racist society, today.

Sometimes the government can do the right thing even when we don't like it. And sometimes they can get us to do the right thing in spite of ourselves.

Wow, I have no idea where to begin.

First, we do not live in a pure democracy. Our forefathers were able to correctly see the problem with that and set up a constitutionally limited republic.

I agree that sometimes the government takes a course of action that goes against the wishes of a majority of americans, but that is not driven by the decision of an entity called government. The decision is driven by the foresight of elected representatives who are also real individual human beings. Their primary motivation these days happens to be getting re-elected.

The civil rights movement didn't begin with the government, it began with some folks that just got tired of letting things stay they way that they were. The subsequent disruptions (riots to be exact) required that the government make some changes in order to "insure domestic tranquility." There was no altruism involved here. There was no seeking after the good of the minorities of this country. That was a "let's save our butt" move, plain and simple.

Politicians disperse funds to serve their purposes in getting re-elected. Not for the long term health of the arts or culture in the USA. In fact, I doubt that most representatives think much about the long term health of this country.

Putting a politician in front of a pile of money and asking them to put it to it's best and highest use is EXACTLY the same as putting a pile of cocaine in front of a drug addict and asking him to leave it alone. They simply do not have the skill set to accomplish that task.

Further, the level of beauracracy and administration that goes into dispersing our own tax dollars back to us for uses in the community like the arts adds costs that are astronomical. It adds costs to the receipients as well. Most of the grant money comes with attachments like having a grant writer (truly a special skill set), submitting the books to a full certified audit (not cheap), reporting on the benefits of the uses for the grant money via an official report back to the grantor.

How you can have faith in all of that serving the arts more efficiently and effectively than the free market can takes a faith I simply cannot muster.

 

[PureX]

I agree that sometimes the government takes a course of action that goes against the wishes of a majority of americans, but that is not driven by the decision of an entity called government. The decision is driven by the foresight of elected representatives who are also real individual human beings. Their primary motivation these days happens to be getting re-elected.

The civil rights movement didn't begin with the government, it began with some folks that just got tired of letting things stay they way that they were. The subsequent disruptions (riots to be exact) required that the government make some changes in order to "insure domestic tranquility." There was no altruism involved here. There was no seeking after the good of the minorities of this country. That was a "let's save our butt" move, plain and simple.

This isn't exactly true. It is true that a lot of people finally got tired of the way things were, and that they learned how to make enough of a noise that the government had to listen to them. But what really made the government do the right thing in spite of the lack of popular support for it was that they/we were already looking really bad to the world, and the alternative solutions (an escalation of violent race-based oppression) would have made us look much worse. The truth is that the government did the right thing to save national face. And that's OK.

Politicians disperse funds to serve their purposes in getting re-elected. Not for the long term health of the arts or culture in the USA. In fact, I doubt that most representatives think much about the long term health of this country.

This is only partly true as well. Their own re-election certainly is their first priority, but it's not their only priority. I think they will try to do the right thing after they have secured their positions and sufficiently assauged their own egos. And you can see this reflected in the percentages of tax money that they apply, and to what. The amount of money they alot for public welfare projects is very small compared to the amount of money they spend on projects that their big political contributors want. But they do still alot some money for the public good. It's just not their first priority.

Putting a politician in front of a pile of money and asking them to put it to it's best and highest use is EXACTLY the same as putting a pile of cocaine in front of a drug addict and asking him to leave it alone. They simply do not have the skill set to accomplish that task.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The same could be said of money, I think, because money is power in a culture that worships money the way we do.

We definitely need more political accountability, but the guy who write the laws don't want to write laws that govern themselves, naturally. And the only way to make them do it is to throw them out of office if they refuse. But that requires a lot of awareness and civil responsibility on the part of all of us, and this is sadly lacking in America these days.

Further, the level of beauracracy and administration that goes into dispersing our own tax dollars back to us for uses in the community like the arts adds costs that are astronomical. It adds costs to the receipients as well. Most of the grant money comes with attachments like having a grant writer (truly a special skill set), submitting the books to a full certified audit (not cheap), reporting on the benefits of the uses for the grant money via an official report back to the grantor.

How you can have faith in all of that serving the arts more efficiently and effectively than the free market can takes a faith I simply cannot muster.

Because the free maket can't make us do what we don't want to do, even though we may need to do it.

Thanks to the media liars, Americans have been stupidly convinced that the sacred "free market" will govern every aspect of our lives successfully, and more honestly and efficiantly than government. This is mostly just corperate sponsered propaganda designed to convince us that greed is good for us, while greed is actually destroying us. 40 years ago, the Unites States was in first place among the nations of the world in it's equitable distribution of wealth. Very few people were very poor, and very few people were very rich, while the vast majority of Americans were more or less equally sharing the wealth of the nation. We are now in 27th place among the nations of the world, and we are in last place among the "industrialized" nations in the equitable distribution of our wealth. We have more very poor people, and more very rich people, and fewer people equally sharing the majority of our national wealth than any other first world country. This unrelenting trend in wealth ineqity has been the direct result of our accepting the idea that greed is good for us, that the free market is sacred and sacrosanct, and that any form economic socialism is a horrible sin against God, man, and nature. These are all lies being told and retold over and over and over again by the very people who are getting so rich, to keep the rest of us stupidly supporting them and voting for their political toadies as they rob us blind. And it's worked.

One of the reasons we need art, is to remind ourselves that greed is not good for us. That money and power is not the measure of all value in life. And that we need to question the status quo if we don't want to be exploited by it. A free market cannot recognize any of these very important qualities, and so will not be likely support them. Which is why we should not allow the free market system to govern everything, and why the politicians and media clowns who tell us that we should are lying to us. We need some way for our better human inclinations to be expressed in our social decisions. And a free market is not it. A free market allows us to express some of our good qualities, certainly, but it also denies and even stifles some that are essential.

 

[Chileice]

Media as a whole is biased against art?

I agree that there is wonderful stuff and awful stuff out there in the art world. The problem is that everyone has a different opinion about what constitutes good and bad.

I think the best and most efficient way to poll what is good and what is bad is to use the free market process to make the determination. Certainly the government isn't less biased about art than is the media.

If art is about taking risks why shouldn't there be some financial risk as well?

If you would like to vote for art you like (or don't) you may do so at this link.
http://www.the-athenaeum.org/index.php
It is kind of fun to see what people like and don't.

 

[Chileice]

One of the reasons we need art, is to remind ourselves that greed is not good for us. That money and power is not the measure of all value in life. And that we need to question the status quo if we don't want to be exploited by it. A free market cannot recognize any of these very important qualities, and so will not be likely support them. Which is why we should not allow the free market system to govern everything, and why the politicians and media clowns who tell us that we should are lying to us. We need some way for our better human inclinations to be expressed in our social decisions. And a free market is not it. A free market allows us to express some of our good qualities, certainly, but it also denies and even stifles some that are essential.

I think this is a very good post. But one can sometimes question the "powers that be" in regard to their art choices. When Ottawa purchased "Voice of Fire" for $1.76 million, I wanted MY money back. I love art, but why on earth they paid that kind of money for a painting of three stripes of colour is WAY beyond me. And my tax dollars helped buy it. You can see it here: http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm

That being said, I love going to the art museum in Ottawa and seeing interesting works of art that wouldn't be there without using our tax dollars. I guess there is a need for art but also a need for some public accountability. I am an artist. I love to paint. And I paint different sytles and appreciate paintings from Murillo to Monet to Demuth. But how do we continue to support art without outraging Joe Public? Maybe that is the question.

 

[PureX]

But one can sometimes question the "powers that be" in regard to their art choices. When Ottawa purchased "Voice of Fire" for $1.76 million, I wanted MY money back. I love art, but why on earth they paid that kind of money for a painting of three stripes of colour is WAY beyond me. And my tax dollars helped buy it. You can see it here: http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm

Yes. Like any human endeavor, the "institutions" get involved and soon become more interested in maintaining their own status (and budget) than they are in carrying out the purpose for which they were created. There are reasons why that painting is historically important, but those reasons really only matter to the art historians. It's unfortunate that so much money was spent on a work of art that fulfills the artistic purpose for so few people. It is art, and it is important, but really, had the museum been more focussed on it's service to the general public, I think it could have done a better job of acquisition for that much money.

That being said, I love going to the art museum in Ottawa and seeing interesting works of art that wouldn't be there without using our tax dollars. I guess there is a need for art but also a need for some public accountability. I am an artist. I love to paint. And I paint different sytles and appreciate paintings from Murillo to Monet to Demuth. But how do we continue to support art without outraging Joe Public? Maybe that is the question.

It is sometimes the purpose of art to "outrage Joe Public". It's good that "Joe" be outraged on occasion, by something as harmless as a work of art. We all need to be kicked out of our routine perspectives of the world, on occasion, and if art can do that without actually hurting anyone, then I think we should be very grateful for it. And if we're too dumb to appreciate such a gift, then we need our government to be smart enough to make us support this kind of endeavor, in spite of ourselves.

I'm also an artist, though in the last 5 years or so I've gotten away from making sculptures and become more interested in collecting musical performances on CD and DVD. I'm trying to restructure my life so I can try my hand at building boats instead of sculptures, but I'll always have an artists attitude, I think. I guess I was just born with it.

 

[HisLight]

PureX,

I have concluded that we did not have the same history teacher or the same contemporary history text books. I think the same could be said for our respective educations in American government.

I hate paying for something...

• Just because someone says I must
• Just because someone says they know what is best for me without proving that they do
• When I could get the same thing for far less money some other way
• That isn't a fair exchange for the time it took me to earn the money required.

I support the arts with the money I earn. Everyone else is paid based on the money they earn. If you want to eat you have to leave the cave, hunt something down and drag it home.

I am sorry you don't think that is fair.

 

[PureX]

PureX,

I have concluded that we did not have the same history teacher or the same contemporary history text books. I think the same could be said for our respective educations in American government.

I hate paying for something...

• Just because someone says I must
• Just because someone says they know what is best for me without proving that they do
• When I could get the same thing for far less money some other way
• That isn't a fair exchange for the time it took me to earn the money required.

I support the arts with the money I earn. Everyone else is paid based on the money they earn. If you want to eat you have to leave the cave, hunt something down and drag it home.

I am sorry you don't think that is fair.

I never said anything about fairness. It's you who seems to be griping about the unfairness of having the government tell you where your tax money will go, etc.

As for our having to hunt and gather and all that, perhaps we are capable of a little more then that, don't you think? After all, we didn't need language to hunt and gather, yet for some reason we developed it, anyway. And we didn't need the idea of God to hunt and gather, but for some reason we developed the idea, anyway. And we didn't need the idea of commerce, to hunt and gather berries, yet we developed this concept, too. Seems to me that there is something in us that drives us to transcend ourselves. And that something seems to show itself to us through endeavors like art and science and philosophy and religion.

Maybe it would be a good idea to develop these "transcendent" endeavors, when we aren't too busy gathering our nuts and berries. Maybe they could lead us to a better way of life. Maybe they already have.

 

[HisLight]

I never said anything about fairness. It's you who seems to be griping about the unfairness of having the government tell you where your tax money will go, etc.

As for our having to hunt and gather and all that, perhaps we are capable of a little more then that, don't you think? After all, we didn't need language to hunt and gather, yet for some reason we developed it, anyway. And we didn't need the idea of God to hunt and gather, but for some reason we developed the idea, anyway. And we didn't need the idea of commerce, to hunt and gather berries, yet we developed this concept, too. Seems to me that there is something in us that drives us to transcend ourselves. And that something seems to show itself to us through endeavors like art and science and philosophy and religion.

Maybe it would be a good idea to develop these "transcendent" endeavors, when we aren't too busy gathering our nuts and berries. Maybe they could lead us to a better way of life. Maybe they already have.

Perhaps we should ask starving people in other parts of the world whether or not they would prefer a bowl of rice or a set of watercolors?

I think that you understand that I don't believe for a moment that we developed language or artistic ability. God gave us language. God is creative and gave us the ability to be creative.

I appreciate art. I value art. Some people think that food is a form of art. Should the government support a restaurant if it cannot be self sufficient for some reason?

I also appreciate the right earn a living. When we work we trade our time for money. I find it impossibly arrogant that you think you have the right to take my money and use it to support discretionary spending. It is not the duty of government to make sure that I have culture. My choices in terms of art/culture are NOT Uncle Sam's business.

Done!