The News Thread

Einherjar86 said:
Additionally, it's a budget proposal and almost certainly won't pass.
Click to expand...

Well that's the other part of it. I try not to start my Ron Swanson giggle until things actually happen - which they rarely do.

giphy.gif
 
So treading cautiously, because I feel that this could result in an explosive back-and-forth over the value of art:

Ideally speaking, you'd say that all federal funding of the arts should be abolished--I assume this is correct? If that's so, then I can only imagine the alternative private funding, i.e. financially motivated donors and patrons. Is that how you think art should be determined, more or less? By how much it generates an economic demand?
 
Einherjar86 said:
So treading cautiously, because I feel that this could result in an explosive back-and-forth over the value of art:

Ideally speaking, you'd say that all federal funding of the arts should be abolished--I assume this is correct? If that's so, then I can only imagine the alternative private funding, i.e. financially motivated donors and patrons. Is that how you think art should be determined, more or less? By how much it generates an economic demand?
Click to expand...

Federal funding of most things should be abolished. Federal funding of anything implicitly states that it is the business of the federal government to be involved in X thing, which says nothing about the actual value of said thing, or whether federal funding is actually ultimately helpful. The more things an organization is involved in, the less well it performs in any one of those areas. Nevermind fiscal issues. We see it over and over again that businesses get too large and try to do too many things and it hurts them, and if they manage to right the proverbial ship, it is buy divesting various components of the business and focusing on their core products. In this case, arts cannot be seen as a "core product" or "core responsibility".

One does not have to be financially motivated to support the arts. My wife has had people buy her work, it's not like those persons were financially motivated. Philanthropic support can sometimes be indirectly financially motivated, but doesn't have to be. What is Bill Gates' financial motivation for donating money to eradicate diseases in the developing world?
 
Dak said:
Federal funding of most things should be abolished. Federal funding of anything implicitly states that it is the business of the federal government to be involved in X thing, which says nothing about the actual value of said thing, or whether federal funding is actually ultimately helpful. The more things an organization is involved in, the less well it performs in any one of those areas. Nevermind fiscal issues. We see it over and over again that businesses get too large and try to do too many things and it hurts them, and if they manage to right the proverbial ship, it is buy divesting various components of the business and focusing on their core products. In this case, arts cannot be seen as a "core product" or "core responsibility".
Click to expand...

The interesting thing here is that I believe art has actually performed better since it's enjoyed federal funding. Federal patronizing of the arts can absolutely be a bad thing (re. propaganda), but in a society that has so many installed democratic institutions (that's not to say that we're a democracy, but merely that we have democratic institutions; the two can exist separately) art enjoys much wider exposure and an increase in quality.

Now this is something you disagree with, i.e. you think art has gotten worse since the nineteenth century. Right off the bat, this premise is invalidated since it's a purely subjective position (granted, so is mine, but neither is more legitimate than the other). Additionally, you believe that art achieved its height in a very narrow window of time, sometime after Brunelleschi's discovery of linear perspective and sometime before the "depravity" of modernism. This impression, the presuppositions of which are hotly contested (i.e. that the definition of artistry is craftsmanship, etc. etc.), is extremely tenuous. If that's the basis of your argument, then we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

The history of art (i.e. history of art criticism) tends to agree that Western culture didn't even establish the contemporary category of art until the eighteenth century or so. Broadly speaking, art didn't achieve the kind of social value it now holds until the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries--well after the introduction of the museum.

Dak said:
One does not have to be financially motivated to support the arts. My wife has had people buy her work, it's not like those persons were financially motivated. Philanthropic support can sometimes be indirectly financially motivated, but doesn't have to be. What is Bill Gates' financial motivation for donating money to eradicate diseases in the developing world?
Click to expand...

If someone pays money for it, then that person is financially motivated. There's little difference in a person paying for a painting and a patron commissioning a painting.
 
Last edited:
Einherjar86 said:
The interesting thing here is that I believe art has actually performed better since it's enjoyed federal funding. Federal patronizing of the arts can absolutely be a bad thing (re. propaganda), but in a society that has so many installed democratic institutions (that's not to say that we're a democracy, but merely that we have democratic institutions; the two can exist separately) art enjoys much wider exposure and an increase in quality.

Now this is something you disagree with, i.e. you think art has gotten worse since the nineteenth century. Right off the bat, this premise is invalidated since it's a purely subjective position (granted, so is mine, but neither is more legitimate than the other). Additionally, you believe that art achieved its height in a very narrow window of time, sometime after Brunelleschi's discovery of linear perspective and sometime before the "depravity" of modernism. This impression, the presuppositions of which are hotly contested (i.e. that the definition of artistry is craftsmanship, etc. etc.), is extremely tenuous. If that's the basis of your argument, then we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

The history of art (i.e. history of art criticism) tends to agree that Western culture didn't even establish the contemporary category of art until the eighteenth century or so. Broadly speaking, art didn't achieve the kind of social value it now holds until the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries--well after the introduction of the museum.
Click to expand...

I think this approach demonstrated here illuminates the very different directions we are coming at the issue from. I don't much care about whether federal funding makes art better or worse. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that in some sort of theoretical unit of quality, that federal funding makes art 100x better than it would otherwise be. That doesn't even enter into the subject as to whether it should be federally funded or not, from my perspective.

It would appear to me that you perceive the federal government as "a thing which should financially and legally support all things which I think are good".

I want to stress that in this case I'm specifically talking about the federal government, not state or local governments. Local government spending to support the arts is much less problematic.

Einherjar86 said:
If someone pays money for it, then that person is financially motivated. There's little difference in a person paying for a painting and a patron commissioning a painting.
Click to expand...

I don't follow this line of thinking. If someone buys art from my wife/commissions a work, they are obviously getting some sort of psychological gain, otherwise they wouldn't exchange the money for the piece. But it's highly unlikely they would get their money back, much less make a profit, so I don't see the "financial" end of the motivation. I could understand if you are talking about a Van Gogh, but that is the exception. When I see the term financially motivated I am thinking of venture capital funding a museum or something with expectations of recouping the investment, or someone buying the Mona Lisa as a store of wealth.
 
Dak said:
I think this approach demonstrated here illuminates the very different directions we are coming at the issue from. I don't much care about whether federal funding makes art better or worse. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that in some sort of theoretical unit of quality, that federal funding makes art 100x better than it would otherwise be. That doesn't even enter into the subject as to whether it should be federally funded or not, from my perspective.

It would appear to me that you perceive the federal government as "a thing which should financially and legally support all things which I think are good".
Click to expand...

I mean, I don't think the federal government should financially support my consumption of Whistlepig. I have a developed opinion of art's social value, not a kneejerk opinion that "art is good." I think there are long-term benefits to the federal funding and public consumption of/exposure to art.

Dak said:
I don't follow this line of thinking. If someone buys art from my wife/commissions a work, they are obviously getting some sort of psychological gain, otherwise they wouldn't exchange the money for the piece. But it's highly unlikely they would get their money back, much less make a profit, so I don't see the "financial" end of the motivation. I could understand if you are talking about a Van Gogh, but that is the exception. When I see the term financially motivated I am thinking of venture capital funding a museum or something with expectations of recouping the investment, or someone buying the Mona Lisa as a store of wealth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should clarify. What I mean is that someone who buys your wife's work judges that a particular piece is worth spending x amount of money on. Presumably they believe that this piece will improve their daily lifestyle (maybe it will be a conversation piece at parties, or maybe it's psychologically stabilizing, etc.). Also presumably, this ostensibly immaterial gain will yield material benefits, i.e. the buyer will perform better at work, interact better among friends, etc. I think there is always some financial motivation when we're talking about purely private promotion of art. Granted, there are also financial motivations to art as it's federally or publicly funded now, but these are accompanied by a social perspective that supersedes monetary gain (I think).
 
Einherjar86 said:
I mean, I don't think the federal government should financially support my consumption of Whistlepig. I have a developed opinion of art's social value, not a kneejerk opinion that "art is good." I think there are long-term benefits to the federal funding and public consumption of/exposure to art.
Click to expand...

Well my point is that it doesn't matter if there are benefits. We can find benefits in all sorts of things that don't enter into conversations about roles, purpose, needs etc. We do not need a federal government because of the arts. A federal government has critical roles of regulating inter and intra state trade, and providing for the common defense. Every additional thing beyond that is problematic. It was primarily the inability to provide for the common defense under the Articles of Confederation that we have a federal government.


Einherjar86 said:
Yeah, I should clarify. What I mean is that someone who buys your wife's work judges that a particular piece is worth spending x amount of money on. Presumably they believe that this piece will improve their daily lifestyle (maybe it will be a conversation piece at parties, or maybe it's psychologically stabilizing, etc.). Also presumably, this ostensibly immaterial gain will yield material benefits, i.e. the buyer will perform better at work, interact better among friends, etc. I think there is always some financial motivation when we're talking about purely private promotion of art. Granted, there are also financial motivations to art as it's federally or publicly funded now, but these are accompanied by a social perspective that supersedes monetary gain (I think).
Click to expand...

I guess I just see this as purely psychological where there's no reason to expect a specific financial return. But I do think there are financial motivations of those people who support federal funding of the arts. It is objectively welfare for the rich, based both on federal spending targets and class consumption habits. If the arts are so valuable to the rich, let them "tax" themselves philanthropically.
 
Meanwhile in Europe and the U.K. you have blocks to stop terrorists from driving their vehicles into crowds of people.

Societies treat ridiculously violent and tragic events like a routine problem? I'm stunned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MetalAges
Fellas - about the T&A thread......
Replies
54
Views
3K
Bloodbath
DarkGift
D
Zephyrus
MDF Anticipated Highlights/Sample Setlist Thread
Replies
9
Views
794
GMD Social Forum
Crucified Coma
C
Attilio II
  • Locked
the 9/11 conspiracy thread
Replies
29
Views
1K
GMD Social Forum
skeptik
S
King Richard
Good news football fans
Replies
12
Views
655
GMD Social Forum
AchrisK
A
F
Question about katatonia artwork
Replies
7
Views
2K
Katatonia
Lord Byron
L
Top Bottom
Back