Is It Art?

[PureX]

I don't disagree with your comments about art being mind expanding. However....

If that is the purpose of art as you state it and enough people agree with you then you should find that there is enough funding to support your cause.

People are very often stupid and selfish. They don't usually agree with anything that threatens their immediate self-gratification. It's in the nature of art to poke and prod at people's preconceptions about everything. A few people enjoy this, because they're very intelligent and because they understand the value of being made to stretch themselves. But most people don't understand the value of such an experience, and so don't like it, and won't support it.

If we can fund other causes through voluntary contributions including causes that effect the human condition directly, such as health and welfare, why isn't that kind of funding sufficient for the arts?

Because art is a special endeavor that most people can't appreciate.

The need of the arts and humanities community does not override the my rights to hold onto my own property. To each according to his need, from each according to his ability ...is that what you have proposed here?

Selfishness doesn't justify everything in life. There are forms of value that transcend MY money, MY pleasure, MY security, MY tittilation, etc. No one likes being made to grow up, yet very often we do need to be MADE to grow up, or we simply won't do it. Art is how a culture grows and matures. Art is how a society learns to expand and adapt to it's changing conditions. Art is how a culture and it's people become better over time. And I think it's everyone's responsibility to suport this even when some of them are too stupid and selfish to appreciate what they're being forced to support.

 

[cattyfan]

Selfishness doesn't justify everything in life. There are forms of value that transcend MY money, MY pleasure, MY security, MY tittilation, etc. No one likes being made to grow up, yet very often we do need to be MADE to grow up, or we simply won't do it. Art is how a culture grows and matures. Art is how a society learns to expand and adapt to it's changing conditions. Art is how a culture and it's people become better over time. And I think it's everyone's responsibility to suport this even when some of them are too stupid and selfish to appreciate what they're being forced to support.

how does relying on public handouts to support the personal indulgence of pursuing art for which there is barely a market qualify as being grown-up and responsible?

 

[PureX]

how does relying on public handouts to support the personal indulgence of pursuing art for which there is barely a market qualify as being grown-up and responsible?

We could ask the same question about religion, now couldn't we? Yet you wouldn't be asking this question if we were discussing a religious endeavor.

Art is not a "personal indulgence", for one thing. Art is an extremely difficult endeavor, made all the more so by a society that's generally too stupid to understand and appreciate it, and therefor fights having to support it. Yet it could be argued that art brings far greater benefit to society than even religion does.

 

[cattyfan]

it could be argued that art brings far greater benefit to society than even religion does.

my concern isn't the edification of society...the benefits of religion are directly related to my eternal well being. I prefer that


by the way, I'm not against art. One of the favorite things in my house is my mixed media Peter Max. His use of color has always fascinated me...especially up close. the brush strokes reveal something far more complex than what is seen at first glance...and that can serve as a metaphor for so many things.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

We could ask the same question about religion, now couldn't we? Yet you wouldn't be asking this question if we were discussing a religious endeavor.

But religion isn't the topic is it?

Art is not a "personal indulgence", for one thing. Art is an extremely difficult endeavor, made all the more so by a society that's generally too stupid to understand and appreciate it, and therefor fights having to support it. Yet it could be argued that art brings far greater benefit to society than even religion does.

Art is a form of expression is a personal thing. It is meant to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature and are considered works of beauty. Yes art is a personal indulgence.

 

[Granite]

But religion isn't the topic is it?


Art is a form of expression is a personal thing. It is meant to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature and are considered works of beauty. Yes art is a personal indulgence.

I think that's a pretty simplistic and disinterested attitude, Smith. Just me.

 

[PureX]

Art is a form of expression is a personal thing. It is meant to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature and are considered works of beauty. Yes art is a personal indulgence.

Like I said, most people don't understand art at all, and so can't appreciate why it's so important to the health of their society, or why they should support it even when they don't like it.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I think that's a pretty simplistic and disinterested attitude, Smith. Just me.

Should it be complicated?

 

[Granite]

Should it be complicated?

Uh, yeah. Why not? Writing off art was just a "personal" endeavor's not the whole story, that's all.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Like I said, most people don't understand art at all, and so can't appreciate why it's so important to the health of their society, or why they should support it even when they don't like it.

The government shouldn't need to finance anyone's artwork. Let the people give from their own pockets freely directly to the artist. If they guve let them give by choice. That would then show who appreciates it more.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Uh, yeah. Why not? Writing off art was just a "personal" endeavor's not the whole story, that's all.

Why should it be complicated?

 

[Granite]

Why should it be complicated?

Because it's not simply a matter of art being an example of an artist's "personal" expression. Cathedrals, for example, are not just about a single artist's observations.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

So the artworks are based on whose expressions?

 

[Granite]

So the artworks are based on whose expressions?

Sometimes the individual, sometimes society, culture...a lot can be involved.

 

[PureX]

The government shouldn't need to finance anyone's artwork. Let the people give from their own pockets freely directly to the artist. If they guve let them give by choice. That would then show who appreciates it more.

You don't seem to understand that the value of art to a society doesn't depend on who appreciates it.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

You want to compare it to the French society?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Sometimes the individual, sometimes society, culture...a lot can be involved.

And you are saying they don't consider it personal?

 

[Granite]

And you are saying they don't consider it personal?

They may or they may not. Either way, you keep up this Bible-clutching Philistine routine and the discussion will go no where. :nono:

 

[HisLight]

PureX

I find that you are still arguing that you know better what should happen to others people's money than they do.

I do appreciate art and I do support it, but I can afford to do some and I like to choose what I will spend the money I earned on.

Whether one finds art valuable or not it is up to them what they spend their money on. I have to justify what I do for a living. Most people would rather see their dentist than pay for my time. I am sorry I have no sympathy that the arts have to do the same. As I said if it is so crucial and so vital to humanity to support the arts, enough smart people will see that and pay for it. Just because it needs to be funded doesn't give the government the right to confiscate the funds from the public.

Surely you don't think you are the only one that feels as you do about supporting the arts. Do a fundraiser!!!

 

[PureX]

I find that you are still arguing that you know better what should happen to others people's money than they do.

What makes you think that in this case, I don't?

Your post claims that people shouldn't have to pay taxes on stuff that they don't want to pay taxes on. But of course, that's silly. We pay taxes for all sorts of things we don't like to pay taxes for. And we do it because the government says it knows better than we do what we should support with our tax money. And the truth is that in many ways, the government DOES know better then the average citizen what their tax money should be spent on. We elect representatives to make these decisions for us, because we don't have the time and the information to do it ourselves.

But Americans have become so spoiled, and so selfish, that they think they can live without the government. They think they should be able to second guess every government decision even though they have no information and no concern at all for the needs of their fellow citizens. So they whine about their having to pay taxes like stupid children, complaining that the government treats them like stupid children.

Each year the government takes about 2 percent of a single penny of our tax money to support the arts. The amount is so small that it's laughable. Yet the moment we see some artwork that we don't like, that was made on a government grant, we get all outraged that our tax dollars have supported this terrible work of art. What spoiled, selfish idiots we are.

The truth is that in most cases we are too stupid and selfish to make good decisions about what our tax money should be spent on. Which is exactly why we throw these silly hissy-fits whenever we see a work of art we don't like that was supported by a government grant (even though the actual amount of money that we spent on that artwork is so small we'd need an 18 digit calculator to figure it out).