 |
Amerikan_Science
Itchy Ronin
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 443 |
Interesting post, PMG!
Ever since the story broke, I have been a proponent of the "Holy Virgin Mary".
I had no idea how useful elephant dung was in some cultures until you made that point. Also, prehistoric cave painters used to create paint by mixing pigment with spittle or even their own urine.
I can see what you mean about how art should be up to the viewer to decide, but I would much rather have some sort of artist's statement, however short.
Admittedly, I have to take much of the current art scene with a grain of salt, but I'm tired of having to argue that art shouldn't be some perfectly representational
image of a bowl of fruit.
------------------------
I'm not bad, I'm just rendered that way.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
12-10-2000 03:15 AM |
|
|
| |
|
bowmore
drive by drunk
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: canadian rockies
Posts: 1526 |
Personally I don't "get" half of the art out there. Van Gogh is about as surreal as I can stand. But if people will look at it, discuss it ect then go for it. Cover your canvass in squid poop and margarine for all I care. Culture finds us. We don't find culture.
selah.
------------------------
Happiness is a moveable feast.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-10-2000 04:27 PM |
|
|
| |
|
RogueWarrior
Cuddly Puppy
Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Gehenna
Posts: 1018 |
That was very incisive, PMG, and most enjoyable. Thank you.
"Art" is subjective, and there are no standards for it. Therefore, when people get up in arms about something like that, they are merely showing everyone how ignorant they are. What I would consider art, PMG, would send you and Amerikan_Science into hysterics. What the two of you consider art would no doubt make me vomit. That's exactly why there can be no standards. I have no right to think that I can enforce my opinions of what ART is on you, nor you on me.
This is also why The NEA is not only RIDICULOUS, but IMMORAL. I am expected to fund, via tax dollar, a program that will pay others to "create" what appears nightmarish and insane to me? And furthermore, I am expected to accept the criticism of every half-witted homosexual who vomits on canvas and calls it art, because they ARE BETTER THAN ME?
Anyone who calls themselves and "ARTIST" and takes money from the government to subsidize their lifestyle is not an artist at all, but a WHORE. That is prostitution. If you are going to take the governments money, then you are subject to Rudolph Guiliani telling you what you can and can't display in his city. The solution: No more NEA, no more Nazis telling you what to do. It's a very simple, elegant solution, and helps keep a few more of MY tax dollars where they belong: in MY POCKET.
------------------------
Snap your fingers. Snap your neck.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-11-2000 09:16 AM |
|
|
| |
|
iglo
27
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202 |
i think though that most people wouldnt have realised that he used elephant poop if they hadnt been told.
that says alot about why one should find out on his own whether he likes a piece or not.
------------------------
|§¤*~`~*¤§§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤ -=¯=--=¯=- §¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-11-2000 09:23 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26536 |
quote:
Originally posted by RogueWarrior:
That was very incisive, PMG, and most enjoyable. Thank you.
"Art" is subjective, and there are no standards for it. Therefore, when people get up in arms about something like that, they are merely showing everyone how ignorant they are. What I would consider art, PMG, would send you and Amerikan_Science into hysterics. What the two of you consider art would no doubt make me vomit. That's exactly why there can be no standards. I have no right to think that I can enforce my opinions of what ART is on you, nor you on me.
This is also why The NEA is not only RIDICULOUS, but IMMORAL. I am expected to fund, via tax dollar, a program that will pay others to "create" what appears nightmarish and insane to me? And furthermore, I am expected to accept the criticism of every half-witted homosexual who vomits on canvas and calls it art, because they ARE BETTER THAN ME?
Anyone who calls themselves and "ARTIST" and takes money from the government to subsidize their lifestyle is not an artist at all, but a WHORE. That is prostitution. If you are going to take the governments money, then you are subject to Rudolph Guiliani telling you what you can and can't display in his city. The solution: No more NEA, no more Nazis telling you what to do. It's a very simple, elegant solution, and helps keep a few more of MY tax dollars where they belong: in MY POCKET.
I don't think I have read a post that I agree with as much as this one in quite some time, especially that last paragraph.
Thank you RogueWarriar.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-11-2000 07:11 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Postmodgirl
quivering arshle
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: I don't fukn' know!
Posts: 5137 |
quote:
Originally posted by RogueWarrior:
"Art" is subjective, and there are no standards for it. Therefore, when people get up in arms about something like that, they are merely showing everyone how ignorant they are. What I would consider art, PMG, would send you and Amerikan_Science into hysterics.
don't be so sure about that! (unless you are talking about fuzzy kittens hanging on branches saying 'hang in there!')
quote:
What the two of you consider art would no doubt make me vomit. That's exactly why there can be no standards. I have no right to think that I can enforce my opinions of what ART is on you, nor you on me.
I would never presume to do so. Art is subjective. There are no rules to it (and what it is not) IMHO.
quote:
This is also why The NEA is not only RIDICULOUS, but IMMORAL. I am expected to fund, via tax dollar, a program that will pay others to "create" what appears nightmarish and insane to me? And furthermore, I am expected to accept the criticism of every half-witted homosexual who vomits on canvas and calls it art, because they ARE BETTER THAN ME?
So should there be no public funding of art at all?
quote:
Anyone who calls themselves and "ARTIST" and takes money from the government to subsidize their lifestyle is not an artist at all, but a WHORE.
does the same go for the military?
BTW anyone who sells a piece of themselves is in a way prostiuting themselves in a way, artist included. Is there anything wrong with that?
quote:
That is prostitution. If you are going to take the governments money, then you are subject to Rudolph Guiliani telling you what you can and can't display in his city. The solution: No more NEA, no more Nazis telling you what to do. It's a very simple, elegant solution, and helps keep a few more of MY tax dollars where they belong: in MY POCKET.
The mayor of New York lost because he had no power in that arena. He's the Mayor & his job is not to govern what goes on in galleries. & while the Museum did recieve funding from the goverment, it wasn't for that show specifically. ANY art can upset ANYONE. & how does the NEA tell anyone what to do?
They just present it. It is up to you how to take it.
~
There has always been a lively argument over what is and what is not art, and what makes someone an artist and what does not.
I have no answer to this.
But I can say that Art is not suposed to be something that is functional or beautiful. Art is anything that provokes an emotional response. ANY emotional response. (to me this includes things/ people/ places/ that would not normaly be considered art).
Art should be made to upset you or anger you. It promotes thinking and growth. It is nessary. Just as the military is nessary. (even though I am sure most of you think that is a silly thing to say).
I disagreed with many of the things in the 'Sensation' show, pactictulary the child porn. But if we shut that up, if we allow the goverment to dictate what should be shown in public galleries we are promoting sensorship. I'm not talking about 'warnings'(there was a warning at the 'Sensation' entrance that young & squeemish vistors should not see that show, I'm talking about not letting anything that could be contravsersial be shown. & if you allow that then you may as well not have books with questionable content be published, or movies being shown etc.
You censor one media you censor them all. The NEA exists to fund artists so that people can have access to something that is not available in many parts of the world. When applying for a grant as an artist you have to submit a proposal. Stuff like maplethorp wont be accepted now. There is a limit to what you can do with a grant. You can't get one and 'live off of it'. You have to produce what you say you will.
Being an artist is not all parting, drinking & fucking around. It's work, & it can be tedious work. and half the time it's not fun. But the result is worth it, which is why we do it.
Blah! Sorry about the rant.
I have no answers. Only statements.
------------------------
post·mod·ern
post·mod·ern or post-mod·ern (pst-mdrn)
adj.
Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-12-2000 03:02 PM |
|
|
| |
|
iglo
27
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202 |
my weird european opinion on this is that the goverment has to give money to galleries , theaters , ... cause acctually that is something that comes back to us tax payers. without this tax money only rich people could affort to see a theather play and the variaty in cultural life will die because of demand and offer.you see , over here we still have subventions to keep bookprizes on one level and out of the demand and offer priciple. take them away and you would get a copy of harry potter for 4$ while you would have to pay 40$ for a copy of ulysess. we would live in a horrible world of musicals and schwarzenegger movies on stage. noone would visit a museum anymore because entrance fees would skyrocket. art is of course a good which is sold and bought like a sack of coffee beans, no denying that.
but in my opinion every society mirrors in their cultural life. the diversity and controversity is important to keep people thinking and prevent them from becoming blind tv idiots.
------------------------
|§¤*~`~*¤§§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤ -=¯=--=¯=- §¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§
[This message has been edited by iglo (edited 12-12-2000).]
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-12-2000 10:55 PM |
|
|
| |
|
MstrG
The Talamasca
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10224 |
If all the so-called rich people don't want theaters or art museums, why should they have to pay for them?
------------------------
SETI@Home: join us!
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 02:00 AM |
|
|
| |
|
iglo
27
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202 |
quote:
Originally posted by MstrG:
If all the so-called rich people don't want theaters or art museums, why should they have to pay for them?
what is that about ? i have to admit , i really dont get your point G granted you had one and were not just out of habbit trying to take a contra position .
------------------------
|§¤*~`~*¤§§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤ -=¯=--=¯=- §¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 10:13 AM |
|
|
| |
|
MstrG
The Talamasca
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10224 |
You know, it's a sign of weakness to constantly strike out with personal attacks when confronted. Anyone paying even the lightest attention to my posts knows I have a consistent 'position' (i.e., value system) from which I operate. It's not my MO to play devil's advocate just to stir up the chatter.
In this case, my stance closely parallels that of RW and Paint above. I chose the phrase "rich people" because you used it in your post. In fact, the principle here remains, regardless of economic status: no one is entitled to the fruits of my labor without my consent, including the National Endowment for the Arts. If a large enough group of people want to financially support something, good for them. Likewise, if there isn't enough backing from the community at large to build a museum, or pay for an artist to smear him/herself with chocolate sauce to tribal music on stage, why should they be forced to fund it?
I should have the right to choose to which charities or arts my money is donated.
------------------------
SETI@Home: join us!
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 02:33 PM |
|
|
| |
|
iglo
27
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202 |
once again that is the fundamental difference between america and europe. and between you and me. sorry if you saw it a personal attack (again i forgot to put a  behind it , well nevermind)
in my opinion people are too stupid to decide what is good for them and what is not. so the goverment has to act. if i would leave it all to personal sponsorship we would see comdeians as cultural life . that cant be the option. i know you would want to life in a country with no govermetn at all it seems , or just a goverment that protects the country as a whole but stays out of your buisness. that again cant be the way for an organzied society and it is the point where the goverment has to protect the citizens from their own .
------------------------
|§¤*~`~*¤§§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤ -=¯=--=¯=- §¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§
[This message has been edited by iglo (edited 12-13-2000).]
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 02:42 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26536 |
quote:
Originally posted by iglo:
in my opinion people are too stupid to decide what is good for them and what is not. so the goverment has to act. if i would leave it all to personal sponsorship we would see comdeians as cultural life . that cant be the option.
Ah. And here arises another fundamental question of art.
That is, when it becomes so snobbish and elite that the average man doesn't understand it, when it becomes "art for artists" as it was at the turn of last century, wherein lies the value of it as a medium?
Put it another way.
You put jibes at the fact that Harry Potter would be $4, yet Ulysses would be $40. That theater would become soley musicals and Schwartzenegger movies. Where is the harm in that? Because you deem it to be not of value, that makes it so? Because apparantly you and the government have a better handle on culture than the people who comprise our culture?
Something you only touched on briefly is that the REASON why these could very well come true is becuase THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT!! And I am not talking about beatnicks in coffeeshops at Haight-Ashbury, I am talking about your average joe, what is pleasing to his eye, what entertains and occupies that person.
What YOU are advocating is TELLING that person what should entertain them. "No no, Mister, you can't read Harry Potter to your children. It is trite garbage! Here, read them James Joyce instead." PMG tells us above that people should be allowed to view what they want, and thus I invoke a fundamental rule of capitalism.
If people WANT to see something, if there is high demand, then that service or art piece or whatever, will make money. Thus, if something is good to many people, there is no reason for my funding of it. It would do just fine on its own.
PMG, if you say that people should be able to view what they want, then why support an agency that props up artists when they can't make money on their own? Again, if people really wanted to see something, funding would not be an issue.
The converse.
If something can only survive based on government funding, then that means it could not survive on its own, and thus, not enough people would enjoy it to make it profitable, or even self-sustaining.
To advocate such a system is the epitome of cultural elitism. "Well, you people don't know what is good for you. So let US decide. Here, let me take your hard earned dollars and fund child pornography. You would have probably just thrown that money away on Jim Carrey movies anyway."
How can you support something like that, iglo? That is cultural elitism of the WORST kind. Granted, the majority of people may be morons, but they are still THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE!!!!
Or, yet another way.
Let's take this practice and apply it to the business world (not such a hypothetical situation BTW, it occurs far too often).
People buy what is useful or needed to them, or at the very least what is pleasing to them.
The government decides that these people cannot be trusted to spend their own money wisely. They are buying DVD players and large TVS when they should be buying electric cars or whatever.
So, they set up a program that funds business ventures that would otherwise fail if opened up to the harsh realities of a free market.
Thus, businesses can now produce whatever the fuck they want without having to bother themselves with what is useful, needed, or pleasing to enough consumers to make it profitable. They get all the money from the people they need vicariously through government subsidies. So they make, say, platinum coated shoe horns. Only a select few actually WANT these shoe horns, and half of those few are the corporate fat cats that chose to make them in the first place. But demand is no longer an issue here.
Would you support a program like that?
Then how can you in good conscious support a program like this?
Well, of course, it is because people are stupid and don't know what is good for them and it is up to the Haight-Ashbury beatnicks to TELL them what entertains them. That's it, isn't it? The secret to culture? A few dicatating the tastes of the many? That is your ideal?
I'll leave you with your own quote.
"in my opinion people are too stupid to decide what is good for them and what is not. so the goverment has to act."
Cultural elitism of the WORST kind.
At least iglo has the balls enough to come out and SAY what is implicit in so many other people's posts on so many different subjects.
[This message has been edited by Paint CHiPs (edited 12-13-2000).]
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 08:34 PM |
|
|
| |
|
iglo
27
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202 |
i may have put some things wrong. but nevertheless i m willing to argue my points. it wasnt my intention to represent culural elitism. i am just of the opinion that quality will vanish if we leave it up to "the average joe". there is nothing wrong with this guy exept from the fact that he is heavily influenced !!! no denying that. TV has him , the eloquent newspaper column has him (you, paint could aswell be writing a column(spelling maybe wrong , whatever))
what the govermetn does is nothing else but beeing a sort of DJ. the set may be stupid of course , you can always discuss that.
another thing is: demand doesnt make art , at least not in my eyes !
paint , what you are stating is a cultural genocide. if you try to handle art (whatever art is) with market terms you let the small ones die with a twinkle in the eye "hey there was no demand they deserved it". if you let the market decide you yourself will be very unhappy with the results, cause for example movies like "naked lunch" , "el mariachi" and even all the tarantino movies would have never been shot....
once more : market may be a good thing , but you cant project market concepts on every issue of life and society . if you do that you doom yourself.
later today i ll link you with one of the leading american market experts he says the same. we are at a point where market isnt the last answer anymore. it is still an important part but not everything. it is not convertable on every aspect of life.
art is not a platinum pair of shoes, eventhough it can be .
i ask you on your quote:Granted, the majority of people may be morons, but they are still THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE!!!!
do you think it is good to just give in to group pressure ? "hey , it is the majority, i better go with them." is that your opinion??
if you think so you completely misunderstood the concept of art in itself.
------------------------
|§¤*~`~*¤§§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤ -=¯=--=¯=- §¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§
[This message has been edited by iglo (edited 12-13-2000).]
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 10:03 PM |
|
|
| |
|
iglo
27
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202 |
[edit]because it would have made no sense without the newspaper article and the name of the guy who wrote it[/edit]
------------------------
|§¤*~`~*¤§§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤ -=¯=--=¯=- §¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§¤*~`~*¤§
[This message has been edited by iglo (edited 12-13-2000).]
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-13-2000 10:22 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26536 |
quote:
Originally posted by iglo:
i may have put some things wrong. but nevertheless i m willing to argue my points. it wasnt my intention to represent culural elitism. i am just of the opinion that quality will vanish if we leave it up to "the average joe". there is nothing wrong with this guy exept from the fact that he is heavily influenced !!! no denying that. TV has him , the eloquent newspaper column has him (you, paint could aswell be writing a column(spelling maybe wrong , whatever))
Two things I would like to mention here:
1. You are making the assumption that this influence is a bad one. One what do you base this assumption? Is it because you dislike and dissaprove of what influences the masses? Well, if that is the case, why is your disapproval more valid than if 50 million Americans disagree with what influences you?
Or, put another way, aren't you contradicting the entire "art is subjective" thesis? I mean, if it is indeed subjective, than on what grounds are you writing off the cultural influences of the masses? Because YOU don't like said influences? Because the governemnt doesn't? Doesn't sound very subjective to me.
2. You are making the assumption that somehow this influence is occuring without the masses knowing it. Are you so pessimistic as to assume that 50% of the world is being brainwashed and thus incapable of expressing personal taste and opinion?
Also, let it be said that the very factors which allow these influences to pervade culture are also the same factors which allow them to be undone.
I hated Full House. HATED IT. But enough people in America liked it to make it a popular show. If nobody like it, if it were being thrust upon them without their consent, they needed only to change the channel. Were that to occur, then Full House would no longer be able to thrive, the advertisers follow the consumers as a rule, and the show would quickly go off the air. THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INFLUENCE PROVES THE FACT THAT ENOUGH PEOPLE CHOSE TO BE INFLUENCED BY IT TO MAKE IT SOLVENT.
I suspect you are confusing this point with the idea that say, the news is liberally biases, and other such popular ideas, and on these points I will warily agree, with the disclaimer that the same mechanisms of a free market are in place to solve these issues as well.
But you are NOT talking about that. You are talking about the entertainment dollar. And that is different, though there are similarities. WHAT IS POPULAR IS, BY DEFINITION, WHAT THE MOST PEOPLE LIKE, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU WILL SEE MORE OF IT. Simple as that. If you don't like it, fine. Don't buy into it. But BECAUSE art IS subjective, there is nothing wrong with this fact.
what the govermetn does is nothing else but beeing a sort of DJ. the set may be stupid of course , you can always discuss that.
another thing is: demand doesnt make art , at least not in my eyes !
Good analogy. But still, missing the point.
I whole heartedly agree with you that there are things that are totally unpopular that are still fine works of art. They don't get the money or recognition that they deserve, and that is just too damned bad for them.
What I RECOGNIZE, however, is that that is MY OPINION and it may not be shared by others. And just because I consider myself to be more educated and smarter than the majority of people does not mean my tastes are RIGHT (whatever that means).
What you are advocated is the government basically telling people "this is of value, this is inherently good, and thus you all will subsidize it, whether you like it or not". THAT is what I take issue with. I have no problem with art, even elitest art. If somebody wants to pay $900,000 for a picture of a red dot, more power to them. HOWEVER, when the government starts taking from my payroll to subsidize pictures of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, I begin to get angry.
In our society, and in the world market, other creations, products, and services of workers must survive based on their own merits. Why should art somehow be different? Let art survive on its own merit is what I say.
Now YOU say, no matter how much you candy coat it, that the masses are not capable of deciding what they like and what they don't. Somebody more "in the know" has to do it for them, has to dictate taste.
Now tell me again how that is not cultural elitism?
paint , what you are stating is a cultural genocide. if you try to handle art (whatever art is) with market terms you let the small ones die with a twinkle in the eye "hey there was no demand they deserved it". if you let the market decide you yourself will be very unhappy with the results
Horseshit.
Are you telling me that nothing of value will be produced unless the government steps in? That's baloney.
HERE is what will happen.
The PEOPLE will get to decide what they like and what they don't.
If that means that some things you consider to be magnificent works of art fail, then tought titties.
I happen to like the Atari as well. But I wouldn't have the gal to say "Hey everybody, I'm taking your money to pay for this cuz it is better than what you all are using and enjoying!"
, cause for example movies like "naked lunch" , "el mariachi" and even all the tarantino movies would have never been shot....
How so? Neither of your examples were subsidized. Pure capitalism is the reason they exist, nothing more.
If you think that Hollywood is not one of the best examples of pure capitalism, you are sorely misstaken.
Let's use the example of El Mariachi.
Robert Rodriguez decides he wants to make a movie. He has no money, he is unproven, and thus nobody will hire him to do so.
What does he do?
Well, you know all those scientific study places, you know "looking for healthy non-smoking males ages 21 to 28 to be in a week long labratory experiment for $1000"? Well, he goes and he does a bunch of those, choosing to be a guina pig for his art (and one of them, a carbohydrate study, nearly killed him). He finally gets something like $13000 and is able to get the cameras and film. He has no money, so he hires friends as actors.
He makes his movie.
He has to edit it via two VCRS plugged into a TV. He gets no money for any of this, as nobody has ever seen it before, so he has to do it the old fashioned way, blood, sweat, and tears.
When he is finished, he takes his videocassette on the festival circuit. Absent the awards and public, the festival circuit is nothing more than a way for young upstarts to find a distributor for their non-mainstream flics.
Well, one distributor, Mirimax, takes interest in this movie. They decide, "you know what, this is a risky deal, nobody has ever seen it before, but it is cheap, we believe in it, let's give it a go". So they buy the rights to it, promote it, and it does well. It becomes a cult hit.
After a year, the movie has paid for itself about a hundred times over, and now Robert Rodriquez has gone from a Guina Pig to a very successful, and very rich, filmmaker.
He found a need and filled it.
He was not subsidized. He recieved no unearned money. He did it anyway. AND ENOUGH PEOPLE LIKED IT AND PAID ENOUGH MONEY TO SEE IT THAT IT BECAME A HIT. BECAUSE of that, the fat cats realized there was a market for not only RR but those types of movies as well. Thus, they DID start to subsidize his work, paying him 10 million to direct something, and took more chances on low budget movies from nobodies. The only reason that El Mariachi and Naked Lunch and every Tarantino movie exist is because enough people like them and are willing to pay for them to make them economically solvent.
Thus, your example proves my point.
You know what subsidized movies would be like?
Go to a film school and find out.
Ever see a student film?
Now imagine all student films are bankrolled by your tax dollars and promoted and distributed by the government without concern for whether or not anybody would like them or not.
once more : market may be a good thing , but you cant project market concepts on every issue of life and society . if you do that you doom yourself.
We are at a point where market isnt the last answer anymore. it is still an important part but not everything. it is not convertable on every aspect of life.
Why not?
What is it that you fear about the will of the people?
art is not a platinum pair of shoes, eventhough it can be .
i ask you on your quote:Granted, the majority of people may be morons, but they are still THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE!!!!
do you think it is good to just give in to group pressure ? "hey , it is the majority, i better go with them." is that your opinion??
if you think so you completely misunderstood the concept of art in itself.
My opinion is that the taste of the few should not be subsidized by the labor of the many.
If it were subsidizing the taste of the many with the labor of the many, than I would be more inclined to agree with you.
But of course, at that point you would be talking about the free market system anyway.
And, as a relevent aside, in an age where we have 10 million homeless people, crime at an all time high, and children starving in our own cities, why the fuck should my tax dollars be spent on what the government considers to be "valuable art"?
[This message has been edited by Paint CHiPs (edited 12-13-2000).]
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-14-2000 12:09 AM |
|
|
| |
|
brimstone
ittle' boy
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: All East Coast : USA
Posts: 2450 |
what the hell do you define as art these days
i draw things, i do things.
haven't in a while though.
i can look at some paintings and simply stare at them forever, the image sits in my mind. Others i'll just glance at and say "wow, congratulations to the artist who learned how to draw a red ball"
is digital artwork really art, another question brought up by someone i've talked to online before
i'll post in the art section, seeing as how what i have takes some time to download i'm sure
------------------------
- brimstone
"We are the all knowing, all loving, monks of war"
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-14-2000 12:33 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Nutrimentia
plata o plomo
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9476 |
I admit I didn't read Paint's last post. I have to get outta here and get some work done, but I wanted to toss off here.
Regarding art, the subjectivity of art defines its value. Art reflects the viewer, a point that is so incredibly important IMHO. I don't know if the value of art lies more in the effects of art on viewers or in its power to illuminate the subjectivity of *all* experience and opinion. Unfortunately people seem to be too dense to realize this and continue to argue over one perception versus another.
We get so attached to a perspective that we become trapped in one reality tunnel, slowly calcifying and believing that we and we alone occupy a space that is 'real' above and beyond other subjective perspectives.
Art should provoke one into seeing things a different way and realizing that his elephant shit is her fire fuel. To ask which is the correct or right meaning or value of art or anything is asking the wrong question. So many of our problems stem from faulty premises and questions. (I will refrain from going into the delightfully problematic anthropocentric question "who made the universe" and the problems that posing a question like that inspires)
The information value of an object or concept is the amount of unpredictability that it has. Art should be informational. It should inspire and provoke new ideas and thoughts while simultaneously representing new ideas and thoughts.
As for government funding of art, I think that the government should support art and other public good projects. I don't think that it should indiscriminately give money to any "half-witted homo who pukes on canvas and calls it art." By all means the government should pick and choose art that at least slightly reflects some social value or interest.
Since I believe that art should provoke thought, the government shouldn't just sponsor pansy-ass blase uninspiring crap. It should sponsor artists that represent a particular segment that has something to say.
I haven't really devoted much thought to public funding of artists so I can't formulate a good argument in its defense. But critics of public funding of items and artifacts that they never use should also consider that the government is working with the entire populace in mind, not a specific person.
I personally don't think that public funds should be used to build stadiums, but allow me to use this as an example. If you have no interest in sports or going to watch a football game, you would argue that your money shouldn't go to the stadium. But consider the larger social value. Having a public local sports team can inspire community and civic pride. This can have far reaching effects including the way that people treat each other and the way they think of those around them as neighbors and friends. I may be too far out on thin ice here, but I am trying to point out that even though you may not take advantage of certain publicly funded ventures, your life is positively influenced by them.
I am not sure how I went from the value of art's subjectivity to football stadiums, which means I need to end this post.
------------------------
Theology is just a bunch of arguing over who to blame for creating reality.
All Hail Eris!
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-14-2000 12:53 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Postmodgirl
quivering arshle
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: I don't fukn' know!
Posts: 5137 |
| |
|
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
