Contratulations - you are well on your way to becoming a certified crotchety Old Man! Your post reminds me of my father talking about my grandfather talking about Elvis.

It's also worth noting that you don't include depictions of hardcore violence and gore in your case for the degeneration of American media. I hardly need to cite examples, but one episode that sticks in my mind was on the show "Over There" (about the Iraq war) where an insurgent was shot in half by a high caliber machine gun - and the bottom half of his body walked a few steps before falling. Now had they also showed a woman's nipple, the phones at the FCC would have been ringing off the hook. I get the impression from social conservatives that it's ok to show a woman with half her head shot off (which they have on CSI quite a bit), as long as you don't show her naked breasts as well. Why is that?

Here's a thought, maybe if you don't like it you shouldn't buy a ticket to see it and let other people decide for themselves.

Or is that just to much "freedom of individual thought" for you?

We don't have arts in America anymore - we have people going through the motions of art...and the pity is that no one is pointing out just how lousy it all is.

Posted by Mark Noonan at January 23, 2007 05:04 AM

I point it out all the time Mark, the difference is, I'm not in the lime light. I know at least a dozen or so "young couples"(late twenties early thirties, extra) that have dropped from the entertainment grid as have my wife & I. Our idea of entertainment is bowling, poker night, game night, ice skating, etc. We almost never sit down in front of a movie unless it's like "cars" or something of that nature & cable, satelite, what the hell are those?! I haven't had those as long as my children have been around. We certainly don't miss them! I've got XM radio & the internet for my fair share of news & sports, that's all we need.

Art..........ha, what a bunch of lousy acid heads! They need to be brought down from their fantasy land back into reality, before it's too late.

By the way extra, I don't see where Mark made any exceptions. Sounds to me like your bitterly reaching for anything to "prove" our supposed double mindedness! I'm sure that Mark wouldn't be turned on by violent crap like that, as you insinuate, but he most definitely wouldn't allow his children to watch it nor would he have the indecency to expose them to that enviroment (RE: Dakota Fanning & her lousy money hungry parents).

Well, Bearman - I know you don't have any way of knowing this since you are off the grid, but CSI and 24 are pretty good examples of that violent crap you refer to. You'll have to ask him whether his wife lets his step-kids watch it.

If I may, since you're treading into my bailiwick, I'd like to offer a few words in defense of the arts in America.

First of all, you may have noticed (I certainly did) that one of the few smart things that Bush did over the past few years was to raise the amount of money devoted to the National Endowment for the Arts. Many of you may read those words and immediately think "Mapplethorpe!" or some variation thereof, but those days are long past. Even a mildly intelligent Republican President and Congress realized that a healthy arts culture leads to a heathly country.

In saying so, I must point out that NEA money only goes to not-for-profit arts organizations in this country, so you can spare me the "my money goes towards masturbating teenagers on Broadway" whine. The money goes to regional theatres, art museums, opera houses, ballet companies and small, community galleries, all of which are necessary tools in keeping a community culturally vital. (This will doubtless spur an interesting discussion on the NEA which, I'm giving fair warning, I am well versed.)

Living in Chicago as I do, I can tell you that the arts in America have never been healthier. But to those of you (like Mark) who equate "art" with what you see when you turn on your TV's at night....well, you get what you deserve if you do that. Network and cable TV are not the arts, boys and girls. If you think they are, I pity you. It means that you are culturally illiterate.

To really know what is going on with the arts in America, you need to actually look for art. In your local museams, theatres. dance companies, etc. Many of you are not intereste in such things. Fine. If you choose not to engage in the REAL artistic culture in America, do me a favor: stop bitching about it.

I could say a lot...a WHOLE lot more, but I've lit enough fires with this post for now. Have fun!

Extra,

Sometimes CSI goes too far - as for 24, I've only seen a couple glimpses of the show, and I do understand it is violent...but violence, or sex, can have its place in genuine high art...but depictions of a teenager masturbating is (a) at least very close to child pornography and (b) cannot be actually necessary to get across teenaged angst over matters sexual. I'm not a prude - but I do insist that art raise up the human heart and mind, not drag it down into the gutter.

Come on Cyber... the individuals who've written these plays/musicals believe they are artists.

I am all for the NEA... I'm not for the NEA paying for art that involves smearing shit on a canvas and calling it the Virgin Mary... (and I'm not saying they did, it was just a for instance)

I also know that there is stuff out there that I don't consider to be artistic or very good, but it doesn't mean that others don't find it art.

It's only pretentious arrogant asses who suggest that people who try to make a living outside of government subsidy aren't really artists because they seek commercial success.

I'm not saying that's you at all Cyber, you've made a lot of claims about your life's path here which leads me to believe you claim to be an artist.

If that's true, way to go. I can see art in my head but don't know how to get it onto canvas, and I've tried. Believe me I've tried.

I just think modifying the old saying of pornography is true. I know art when I see it.

Finally, if anyone suggests Deal or No Deal is art, likely would say those felt pictures little kids color in with markers are art. Now in my humble opinion, the NEA shouldn't pay for that.

But I remind Cyber, he doesn't get to define art anymore than I do. Artists, per his own beliefs are of all types, including those who make a profit for what they do.

Cyber,

You must have missed my post a few months back about my sojourn into the local arts scene...Las Vegas, of course, is not an arts mecca, but it is trying very hard to bring some culture to the city now that its growing into a metropolis eventually to be 3 million or so people...I was nauseated by it. As alluded to above, it was trolling through a pierced and tattoo'd gutter...dark, depressing...clearly a bunch of kids who were influenced by people who are still trying to piss off their parents when they are 50 years old.

Take away the sex and the regular anti-Catholic/anti-Christian allusions in most of modern art (whether it be painting, sculpture, music, plays, movies, books, etc) and you've got nothing. Show me a passage of dialogue in any modern play or movie which compares with the dialogue of a Shakespearean drama, or even something from a second-rater like GB Shaw. Inside our fourth rate modern art, the fifth rate is struggling to the surface.

Cyberactor,

Well done! Thread OVER.

Gar

Gar:
Thanks for proving yet again that liberals believe that their position is far superior no matter what it is (even when it's BOTH sides of an argument as the debate progresses).

It shows how much you guys like to stifle debate.

I had it in my brain Gar that you were better than that. Maybe you're having an off day.

You're probably tired with the 100 hours that lasted nearly 1000 in the average life of most Americans. Take a nap.

If you need a hug, Aaron is giving them away a couple threads up.

Seeking the arts scene in Vegas are you? And you came up wanting? Imagine, oh just imagine, my shock and awe.

I can give you many, many, many examples of beautiful, poetic writing in the past few years but I will instead settle on two of the past decades greatest artists, whose work continues to resonate: Tom Stoppard and August Wilson.

Wilson, who tragically died (last year? Maybe 2005), did so only after completing his ten play project that sought to illuminate the African American experience by setting a play in each of the ten decades of the 20th century. These included hits like "Fences," "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" and his last, the brilliant "Radio Golf." Gorgeous, poetic, lyric plays that would make Shakespeare blush. (GB Shaw is a second rater? You, sir, are a heathen.)

Tom Stoppard, a positively brilliant dramatist whose work continues to astonish, is in the midst of staging a three part epic in New York called "Coast of Utopia" and is responsible for some of the most breathtaking drama of the past thirty years. Just look at "Arcadia" if you want to read something beautiful and moving.

Lord, the list goes on and on. John Patrick Shanley, Martin McDonough, Rebecca Gilman, Richard Nelson, Edward Albee (still writing!), the late Wendy Wasserstein, Tony Kushner, Terrance McNally...all produced brilliant work over the past five, ten, fifteen years and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the arts are alive and well in America. And those are just the THEATRE artists.

Thing is: you've got to LOOK for these plays. You ain't gonna find 'em in the back alleys in Vegas, buddy. Most of them are being produced and developed at not-for-profit arts organizations across the country and beyond. And our tax dollars go to support these organizations because a strong artistic culture is vital to our collective well-being.

Anybody got a problem with that?

Cyber:
You continue to miss the point entirely.

People would argue that the plays Mark mentions aren't art. I'm not sure if you believe they are art or not, but the bottomline is....

You are entitled to what you determine to be art, just as everyone else is. And just as you're willing to bitch about your tax dollars being spent on things you don't approve of, so can people who disagree with this stuff being art.

I am very much a theatre buff. I took several classes in college, my favorite, contemporary Irish theatre. And when I was in London, we went to shows twice a week for class, and they weren't all at the Royal Theatre.

For example, I don't necessarily like the Seagull by Chekov, but it's universally considered art. But that doesn't mean that I want to have to pay for it to be performed.

And that's the issue with tax dollars. We tend to think our money ONLY goes to the things we don't like. You may not want to build a highway in Alaska, but I don't care about building a federal building in West Virginia named after Robert Byrd.

Art is, and will always be in the eye of the beholder. But the NEA is government funded art, and therefore, the government should get to decide what it wants to pay for.

Hold up. "People would argue that the plays Mark mentions aren't art." What the hell plays are you talking about? The jerk-off play in New York? Who cares?

The main point I was refuting was the totally ludicrous assertion that the arts are dead in America. They most certainly are not. And I have proved it. In spades.

Secondly, since you have now raised the spectre of government censorship of the arts, I would like to ask: how would you have the government dictate what these not-for-profit arts organizations present, hmmmm? I warn you now: I have had this argument before and you, my friend, are standing on a very, very slipperly slope.

Watch your step!

Actually dude... how is it censorship if the government doesn't want to pay for something?

I'm not saying I'm in favor of censorship, but no artist is ENTITLED to money from the government.

If the government only wants to pay people to make collages or murals, then those who want to do something else can find funding elsewhere. There are millions out there that can be given by private citizens who would be happy to give their money, except they too don't necessarily support ALL art as the artist wants to see it as such, probably because they know they need to earn a living, and working at Les Schwab probably won't allow them to be considered "artists."

BTW... we aren't friends... not even acquaintances. I wasn't attacking artists, nor was I attacking the NEA. If you'll notice, I've stated the following.

1. People can criticize art all they want. It's in the eye of the beholder.

2. People can criticize the government sponsoring artists all they want. It's their right to do so.

3. The government isn't censoring anyone if they say hey Cyber, what is your project going to be? Well I want to find a dead corpse, splay the skin off the guy and stretch it over canvas. Government: No thanks!

Well Cyber, I've changed my mind, we could probably be friends, I like creative types, we just couldn't talk politics. Because in that one area, you're dead wrong, and you're being wrong is putting our lives at risk.

Where to start? Look, Wally, I admire you support of the arts, I really do. But it is clear from your post that you really don't have the first idea about what the NEA actually does. Let me run it down for ya:

"Actually dude... how is it censorship if the government doesn't want to pay for something?"

Because it doesn't work that way. See, the way it works is: not-for-profit arts organizations apply to the NEA for money. The NEA looks at their track record, their history, their leadership and their goals and then decides whether or not to fun the organization. What the organization then does with that money cannot be dictated by the government. Seems crazy doesn't it? Except for a few things:

First, the government, for all its perceived largesse, actually only provides a fraction of the budget for such organizations. So why in the world should such a small contributor (or ANY contributor, for that matter) dictate the content? Now, if the government doesn't like what it sees, it can always curb the funding AFTER the fact, but being an artistic watchdog, I hope you'll agree, is hardly the job of the U.S. government.

"I'm not saying I'm in favor of censorship, but no artist is ENTITLED to money from the government."

Who said they were? Not only that, I'm gonna bet you didn't know that the NEA doesn't give money to individual artists anymore. They should give to some of them, but thanks to the Gingrich/Mapplethorpe BS fiasco in the early ninties, they scrapped the program. So when you talk about money to individual artists, here's a tip: Don't.

"If the government only wants to pay people to make collages or murals, then those who want to do something else can find funding elsewhere. There are millions out there that can be given by private citizens who would be happy to give their money, except they too don't necessarily support ALL art as the artist wants to see it as such, probably because they know they need to earn a living, and working at Les Schwab probably won't allow them to be considered "artists.""

Again, you're talking about censorship. It doesn't sound like you are, but you are. For example, some people like to pull this canard out of their patoots when arguing against the NEA: "I don't go to the gol-durned opera so why should I have to pay for it?" I'll tell you why: because you benefit financially from it, you boob. The arts bring in FAR more money to a community than they take out. Cities with strong and vibrant cultural institutions are tourist MECCAS. De-fund the arts and the people stop coming. Can anyone say "Detroit"?

"1. People can criticize art all they want. It's in the eye of the beholder."

Which is why Mark's original argument on this thread was so specious. If you haven't SEEN the art, you are not qualified to COMMENT on it. Get that?

"2. People can criticize the government sponsoring artists all they want. It's their right to do so."

Except the government doesn't sponsor artists. So, no, they can't.

"3. The government isn't censoring anyone if they say hey Cyber, what is your project going to be? Well I want to find a dead corpse, splay the skin off the guy and stretch it over canvas. Government: No thanks!"

Except, again, that's not how it works. I get your point, but the situation you describe is only to be found in the land of fantasy.

"Well Cyber, I've changed my mind, we could probably be friends, I like creative types, we just couldn't talk politics. Because in that one area, you're dead wrong, and you're being wrong is putting our lives at risk."

Well, we agree on one thing: that the other is dead wrong and that their political philosophy is harming the country irreparably. Isn't it nice when we can get along?

Cyber:
Sticking to the topic of Arts and the NEA.
You clearly seem to miss my point. You seem to not want people to express their views, whether they are right or wrong.

Interesting that others on your side of the political divide seem to operate this way MOST of the time.

I understand how the NEA operates in basically giving block money to a museum/gallery or other arthouse, including theatre, etc.

What I'm saying is that if the government wants to say, when giving out money, we want it to ONLY go for this, then that's clearly not censorship; it's the government commissioning art.

I draw the line at someone standing up and saying NO. You can't put that on display. But if the government feels the need to put stipulations on it's money, then it should be able to.

You go to Starbucks (as an example) and give them money in order to get what you want. If the barista who thinks they are an artist gives you a machiotto instead of the latte you asked for, you have a right to complain.

I just see the government having the right to say what it wants for it's money. The government has no right to say to you that you CAN'T make the art you want, but it can say they won't pay for it. And just to clarify, it can't be AFTER the fact. Once they've paid you and you've created it, they can't say "do over."

Out of curiosity, what kind of art do you create? I ask only because, as you acknowledge, I do like art.

BTW... I've been to the Louvre, but because of all the tourists taking pictures of La Jaconde (the Mona Lisa to us English speakers) I wasn't able to see it. But I can comment on it as I've seen photos of it, and read articles about it.

And even if you've never seen the POS canvas I painted a couple months back, you'd be pretty safe in saying it's NOT art. :-)

"Sticking to the topic of Arts and the NEA."

If you like, sure. But could somebody PLEASE acknowledge that Noonan is full of crap when he denounces the state of the arts in America, please? It's just a really dumb thing to say.

"You clearly seem to miss my point. You seem to not want people to express their views, whether they are right or wrong."

Shoot, I don't care. Express away! We libs are all about free expression. I would, of course, prefer that the expressions be INFORMED expressions, but I'm not about to censor anyone...

"I understand how the NEA operates in basically giving block money to a museum/gallery or other arthouse, including theatre, etc."

Good.

"What I'm saying is that if the government wants to say, when giving out money, we want it to ONLY go for this, then that's clearly not censorship; it's the government commissioning art."

Not quite. For example, let's talk about, say, the Goodman Theatre here in Chicago. One of the largest, best, regional theatres in the country. Not-for-profit, but somehow commercially viable all the same. They put on great shows and receive a small amount of their funding through the NEA. So how, in your scenario, can the government tell the Goodman what to do with their money? They do plays. That's all they do. What, if any, say should the government have in dictating the type of art they create? My response is: none. Until and unless the Goodman produces something that provokes moral outrage, why should what they produce be answerable to the government? It can't be. That's my point.

"But if the government feels the need to put stipulations on it's money, then it should be able to."

Like what? How should the money to, say, the Art Istitute or the Lyric Opera be awarded? With what government restrictions? It's a trick question, Wally, because whatever you answer: its censorship.

"You go to Starbucks (as an example) and give them money in order to get what you want. If the barista who thinks they are an artist gives you a machiotto instead of the latte you asked for, you have a right to complain."

The government, though, isn't the patron, Wally. The people are the patrons. The government is giving the money to "Starbucks" to subsidize giving the people what they think it wants. If the public doesn't like it, they stop coming or they raise a ruckus about their lousy machiottos. That's the way it works. But the government can't say to our fictional Starbucks "We believe the people only want straight up, black coffee. Don't give them any of those fruity, liberal drinks or we'll cut your funding!" Doesn't work that way.

"And just to clarify, it can't be AFTER the fact. Once they've paid you and you've created it, they can't say "do over.""

Again, how would you prefer it? Governmental artistic micro-managers who scour the theatres, museums and ballet companies looking for "dangerous" art? There's a name for people like that: censors.

"Out of curiosity, what kind of art do you create? I ask only because, as you acknowledge, I do like art."

I'm an actor, director, writer and producer, mostly for theatre. But I do the occasional commercial. A guy's got to pay the rent, right? :)

"And even if you've never seen the POS canvas I painted a couple months back, you'd be pretty safe in saying it's NOT art. :-)"

I've done plays like that. It's okay. When you're an amateur, just the act of creating can be enough. The final product doesn't really matter as long as doing it is fulfilling.

Cyber... thanks for sharing what you do, and for the kind words about my creative process. It's just frustrating when I know what I want and I can't get it to look like what I want.

Anyways... I understand what you're saying, but I guess we'll have to disagree... for instance, let's use the Playhouse you mention, the Goodman.

The Goodman Theatre, if the government doesn't want to continue it's endowment, will look elsewhere. I assume that anyways, and it may be hard on the theatre, but they'll try hard as it can to keep going.

I guess maybe we are talking about censorship in different matters. I get the impression that you believe anytime the government decides NOT to give money to something, or some member of Congress grouses about it, it's censorship.

I don't see that as censorship. To me, if the government gives you money to put on a play, and some super secret government agent watches it, and reports back and they make you stop putting the play on, that's definitely censorship.

I don't see the government NOT funding a museum as censorship.

I get your point about government trying to "approve" art. I think you take me too literally. I'm saying, what if the government through the NEA has guidelines saying the art they sponsor for the year has themes.

Like what if Congress said the NEA endowments for 2007 should go towards artistic endeavors advocating how important mothers are to society.

Is that censorship? Or is that government using money to hopefully build artistic education to an important topic. I'm thinking kind of like how Universities will often fund art shows with a "theme." That's more of what I'm trying to get at.

Maybe we are only arguing semantics. But I don't see anything wrong with the government saying they want the NEA to be ABOUT something. Content notwithstanding.

The funny thing about art, especially nowadays, is that it is entirely subjective... personally, I wouldn't pay to see a play about masturbation, but some may... I doubt their tastes, and I doubt the sanity of the people who put filth like this on the stage (or on the screen, canvas, on records... etc). Whether or not that it warrants the revocation of its title of "art" is an entirely different story, because it depends on the individual's own personal definition of the word. It will eventually degenerate into an argument (which it apparently already has here) that is really unwinnable.

Now, Mark, as to your assertion that rock music is dead and all they sing about is sex, drugs and the like, I would like to give you a few bright spots in the sea of sh*t that is modern music:

Flogging Molly is a punk-infused Irish folk band based out of Los Angeles. Most of the lyrics come from the main singer's experiences growing up in IRA dominated Ireland in the 70's. My mom actually listens to a lot of this stuff with me, and she is close to your age.

Apocalyptica is a classical infused (by way of their three prominent cellists) goth metal band from Finland. I am not the biggest fan of their lyrics, but the majority of their work is instrumental and quite interesting.

Muse is a prog rock band out of the UK. I haven't listened to too much of their stuff, but for the most part, it's quite good.

Other good bands are Franz Ferdinand and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (though a lot of their lyrics are quite superficial).

I admit that much of the music nowadays does suck, but you don't have to retreat to Christian Rock (which I find to be quite trite) to find coherant, non-sex/drugs lyrics... Just a thought.

"Cyber... thanks for sharing what you do, and for the kind words about my creative process. It's just frustrating when I know what I want and I can't get it to look like what I want."

Tell me about it. Story of my life, sometimes. Though, when you do get it right, there's no better feeling...

"I guess maybe we are talking about censorship in different matters. I get the impression that you believe anytime the government decides NOT to give money to something, or some member of Congress grouses about it, it's censorship."

No, no, no. I am saying that if the government's money comes with strings attached as far as CONTENT goes in an artistic venue, THEN it is censorship.

"To me, if the government gives you money to put on a play, and some super secret government agent watches it, and reports back and they make you stop putting the play on, that's definitely censorship."

Right-e-o.

"I don't see the government NOT funding a museum as censorship."

No, but suppose that museum sponsors an art exhibit and one of the pieces in one of the galleries has something that might be deemed "offensive" by some small member of the public. Should their funding be cut as a result of that one painting or sculpture? Again, this is a trick question! (Heh, heh, heh.)

"I'm saying, what if the government through the NEA has guidelines saying the art they sponsor for the year has themes. Like what if Congress said the NEA endowments for 2007 should go towards artistic endeavors advocating how important mothers are to society."

Wally, honestly, that would be just awful. Can you imagine it? Opera companies having to search for pro-maternal shows just to please their governmental overlords? Ballet companies, art museums doing the same? Homogenized art? One shudders at the thought.

"Is that censorship? Or is that government using money to hopefully build artistic education to an important topic. I'm thinking kind of like how Universities will often fund art shows with a "theme." That's more of what I'm trying to get at."

It's micromanagement. And, worse, it puts the government in the awkward position of having to make artistic decisions. Who gets to choose these "themes"? Congressmen? Oh, God, shoot me now. Beaurocrats? Presidents? And to what purpose? The system ain't broke now, so why tinker with it?

"Maybe we are only arguing semantics. But I don't see anything wrong with the government saying they want the NEA to be ABOUT something. Content notwithstanding."

Oh, Wally, the NEA is about something all right. In fact, it is wonderfully simplistic about what it is about: fostering a healthy artistic culture in America. And the way one generally goes about getting a healthy artistic culture is by NOT meddling with the artists. It's that whole free expression thing we discussed earlier.

I'm almost disappointed that no one showed up to advocate cutting the NEA entirely. I have a WONDERFUL rebuttal to that argument but...the times appear to have changed. People now recognize how important the institution is. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

"No, no, no. I am saying that if the government's money comes with strings attached as far as CONTENT goes in an artistic venue, THEN it is censorship."

I just don't understand why you think the government should be in the business of just giving away money to let some artist express himself.

I'd love to express my desire to be idly rich so I can spend obscene amounts of money on art for my home, but the governmet believes I have an obligation to pay my taxes.

I just don't have a problem with the government wanting to support art while also educating people.

Further, I don't buy into the argument that if the government gives money to a museum and they have an exhibit that someone finds offensive, and the NEA gave money but for a different exhibit at the museum, I don't believe money can be cut.

There is similar funding concerns within the scientific community.

"I'm almost disappointed that no one showed up to advocate cutting the NEA entirely. I have a WONDERFUL rebuttal to that argument but...the times appear to have changed. People now recognize how important the institution is. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside."

Bummer when we can't give you the question you want to answer... but then again, as is often true in politics, you answer the question you wish had been asked.

Out of curiosity Cyber... back before America was a country, how did artists live? Did they have to sell art to a benefactor or client? I guess I just don't see art needing government subsidy to flourish.

Granted, it's great that government recognizes the need for art, but what if we took the NEA money and applied it to schools to keep art programs along with music. What if we taught all children to nurture their creativity?

Again, I'm not for abolishing the NEA... I just don't see a problem with the government wanting to educate with that art. And remember, an artist isn't obligated to take money from a museum, nor is a museum obligated to ask for that money as well.

Anyways, I don't necessarily think it needs to be specific for a year. What if they said, X amount of money is for a museum who wants to have a show about 1. Y amount of money is to a playhouse who wants to have a play about 2.

Think of it more as a college scholarship. Or perhaps, have some specific content and then general block money.

And yes, this is all theoretical, so if you want to call it fantasy, go ahead. But I'm talking about making the NEA and the art it engenders more relevant to people of today.

At least I hope you don't think I'm out to kill or quash art. I just don't see it as being something that should be a guaranteed source of support for artists.

"I just don't understand why you think the government should be in the business of just giving away money to let some artist express himself."

Geez, Wally, I thought I made that clear. The government is NOT in the business of giving money to artists. Didn't I already say that?

"I'd love to express my desire to be idly rich so I can spend obscene amounts of money on art for my home, but the governmet believes I have an obligation to pay my taxes."

Um, okay.

"I just don't have a problem with the government wanting to support art while also educating people."

They do! They fund arts education as well as block grants for theatres, opera companies, museums, etc. But you keep dancing around the issue of censorship which, I know, is a really tough thing for conservatives to let go of. The simple truth is: the NEA gives money to theatres (et al) so they can produce art. There are almost no restrictions on how the theatre (or whatever) uses that money. In this way, the cultural institution (NOT ARTIST, WALLY) is obligated to do what their mission states: to provide cultural arts to the community. Which they do. It's a hell of a system.

"Further, I don't buy into the argument that if the government gives money to a museum and they have an exhibit that someone finds offensive, and the NEA gave money but for a different exhibit at the museum, I don't believe money can be cut."

Okay, I didn't follow that at all.

"Out of curiosity Cyber... back before America was a country, how did artists live? Did they have to sell art to a benefactor or client? I guess I just don't see art needing government subsidy to flourish."

Oh, my, Wally, you need to study up on your art history. The story of world culture is one of a beautiful marriage between artist, patron and government subsidy. How do you think all those opera houses and museums in Europe got built? Private money? Dream about it.

Almost every great artistic achievement (save those in the commercial realm) can be traced to the generousity of patrons and the government pooling resources to provide venues that allow the arts to flourish. The sad truth about great art, Wally, is that it is rarely profitable. Nor need it be. This, in particular, is what drives conservatives NUTS when you talk about art. They think that if it is valuable, it MUST be able to turn a profit. That is absolutely NOT the case. If it were so, PBS would be the highest rated network on TV, right? But it isn't. Why? Because the general public doesn't spend their money on great art, Wally. They spend it on escapist crap. So patrons, and the government, step in to subsidize the arts to (a) keep it alive and (b) keep it affordable.

"Granted, it's great that government recognizes the need for art, but what if we took the NEA money and applied it to schools to keep art programs along with music. What if we taught all children to nurture their creativity?"

We do. But, in addition to that, we also fund arts organizations. As we should.

"Again, I'm not for abolishing the NEA... I just don't see a problem with the government wanting to educate with that art. And remember, an artist isn't obligated to take money from a museum, nor is a museum obligated to ask for that money as well."

Oh, sure they are. Without the NEA, even though it may only be 5-10% of their budget, many arts institutions would be in big trouble. See, they are ALL not-for-profit and, therefore, their budgets are pretty fragile. But that's the beauty of the system. The government will give you money, but ONLY if your only goal is to benefit the community. Everyone's a winner!

"Anyways, I don't necessarily think it needs to be specific for a year. What if they said, X amount of money is for a museum who wants to have a show about 1. Y amount of money is to a playhouse who wants to have a play about 2."

Back in the "government as artist" boat, though, Wally. Who makes the decisions?

"And yes, this is all theoretical, so if you want to call it fantasy, go ahead. But I'm talking about making the NEA and the art it engenders more relevant to people of today."

It already is! If you don't SEE the art being produced, though, you wouldn't know that. In order to see where your money is going, you have to patronize these places. Then you'll see just how relevant the art being produced truly is.

"At least I hope you don't think I'm out to kill or quash art. I just don't see it as being something that should be a guaranteed source of support for artists."

Look, artists make doodly-squat, as a rule. They do what they do because they are driven to create, not because of the money. There's hardly ever any money in it anyway, unless you decide to move into commercial art. And then, if you do, you're not eligible for goverment money anyway. See how wonderfully that works?

Holy Cramoley, those are some painfully long and boring posts, no offense.

I will stand up for one show, which if it offends you, then you need to dig a hole, climb into it and pull the dirt back over you; "The Office". Great humor, great presentation and the funniest characters on tv.

Well Cyber:
I figured we were having a fairly decent discussion... and then it clearly turned south.

Where do you get Wally out of my name? It's Will. Even the nickname says Will in it. the WA stands for Washington State. ANYWAYS....

"I thought I made that clear. The government is NOT in the business of giving money to artists. Didn't I already say that?"

Whether there is an intermediary, ie. galleries or playhouses, the money is to go to the artist to be creative. However you want to look at it, the NEA gives money to "art places" (just to be simplistic) so art can be created... I imagine the NEA wouldn't take too positively an "art place" deciding they just wanted the money and didn't do anything with it. IF you want to be technical, you're right. But in reality, it's money so artists can create. Truly a noble thing.

My comment about being wealthy was a jest about how I'd like to be rich so I could have artists work for me as well. I have a friend who will paint me something usually as a gift for Christmas or my birthday. It's usually the best gift I get each year. It'd be nice to be able to pay for that. I'd also love to give more money to my alma mater so they can put on small student written shows since they don't have the money to put on that many.
"But you keep dancing around the issue of censorship which, I know, is a really tough thing for conservatives to let go of. The simple truth is: the NEA gives money to theatres (et al) so they can produce art. There are almost no restrictions on how the theatre (or whatever) uses that money. In this way, the cultural institution (NOT ARTIST, WALLY) is obligated to do what their mission states: to provide cultural arts to the community. Which they do. It's a hell of a system."

Does it matter whether that community or not thinks of is art? Obviously not to the Federal Government. But as a conservative, I believe communities have a right to determine what their community values are. As someone who doesn't fear being challenged, I wouldn't mind most art. If I read a review and found it offensive, I may not go, but it doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be paid for by the government.

Again, can't one argue that museums have just as much ability to censor an artist if they want to with how they use the NEA money? Or is that okay because they are artsy-fartsy types and wouldn't DARE censor? I'm just confused by why it's bad for the government to, but OKAY if the "art place" management does it. But I'm willing to agree with you that government shouldn't be in the business of artistic content.

"Okay, I didn't follow that at all."

I was trying to clarify my view on government cutting funding to "art places" where they don't like something the "art place" or artist has done. But I guess it didn't make much sense. See, my verbal art let me down. DANG IT.

"Oh, my, Wally, you need to study up on your art history. The story of world culture is one of a beautiful marriage between artist, patron and government subsidy. How do you think all those opera houses and museums in Europe got built? Private money? Dream about it."

Actually Cyber, that money you mention, in most parts of Europe, was done by the "state" in the form of Kings and Queens, and Dukes and the like.
Ya, it may have been taxes, but it was for the private desires of many people not necessarily responsible to the direct will of the people. However, I don't claim to be an Art Historian. And I'm sure, back in the day, government built great places of art because it's something governments did in order to be considered "cultured." Have you noticed that in most places around the world, government doesn't build places of cultural significance unless it's a sporting event... that should be something you are upset about, as am I.

"They spend it on escapist crap. So patrons, and the government, step in to subsidize the arts to (a) keep it alive and (b) keep it affordable."

As they should. However, you want to talk about things like the fairness doctrine at PBS? We can. However, one of my great loves are Britcoms, and without PBS, I never would have discovered that... but it seems to me that PBS was brought to us by people like us?

"We do. But, in addition to that, we also fund arts organizations. As we should."

Not enough. Heck, we've even shifted away from history because all that matters is math and science and then sports after school.

"See, they are ALL not-for-profit and, therefore, their budgets are pretty fragile. But that's the beauty of the system. The government will give you money, but ONLY if your only goal is to benefit the community. Everyone's a winner!"

Well, here's hoping this doesn't get the chop with PAYGO. I agree with you 100%, In High School, instead of Advanced English, I was able to take Humanities. And I must say that EVERYONE in High School should be required to understand how art and literature and music and history all intertwine. But alas that won't happen anytime soon.

But what if a community doesn't want the art that the museum provides it? Doesn't that have any bearing or importance?

"Back in the "government as artist" boat, though, Wally. Who makes the decisions?"

My name is not Wally. What do you think of the Kennedy Center? Their board is pretty much a cross section of American political and social thought, and they seem to do a great job of recognizing artists in many different fields. Something like that could easily be decided. OR... if an "Art place" takes NEA money, local community leaders can appoint a broad advisory panel to determine how to spend that NEA money.

Or, let me do it. :-)

"It already is! If you don't SEE the art being produced, though, you wouldn't know that. In order to see where your money is going, you have to patronize these places. Then you'll see just how relevant the art being produced truly is."

Come on, you know full well that some parts of this country don't have access to places that get NEA money. So they have every right to complain about a program they see no direct benefit. It doesn't mean they are right, but they have the right to complain.

"Look, artists make doodly-squat, as a rule. They do what they do because they are driven to create, not because of the money. There's hardly ever any money in it anyway, unless you decide to move into commercial art. And then, if you do, you're not eligible for goverment money anyway. See how wonderfully that works?"

I'm not 10. I know artists aren't rich. I know they don't all have trust funds, like most of us. I just don't believe art goes away because the government gets picky about the 5% to 10% of a small piddly budget you claim exists out there.

I am very much in favor of art for arts sake. I'm also not opposed to someone making money from their art, or not making ANYTHING. If someone loves what they do, then they are doubly lucky to be given the gift of joy through their work.

Cyber:
I'm not opposed to the NEA. I'm not opposed to art. And maybe my ideas aren't practicable, but it's not because I don't care.

Sorry bongos...
I was enjoying the exchange. It was pretty interesting to learn a bit about where Cyber is coming from.

When I read the knee-jerk Liberal defense of what passes for 'art' among the glitterati, I am reminded of the I Love Lucy show where Lucy and Ethel were in Paris, lusting after Parisian couture, and strutted around in burlap bags with buckets on their heads because they thought this was the epitome of high fashion.

Hint to the Libs: This is another Emperor with no clothes....

*Chuckles*

Quite the row Cyber and Will have going on isn't it? I like! :)

Well for me "art" has meant different things at different times in my life. I suspect in ten years I'll think different things are art as well, that's just the way things go I suppose. :)

To me, when I think of "cultural events" I think of bands. I blame it on the dozen plus years of my life devoted to singing and playing music. Most of my life I've lived in the boonies (

The NEA is an interesting part of the government. They're one of those groups like the police and fire that, in my opinion, can do no right. Oh sure, they can do their jobs every day but it's when something goes wrong that folks really pay attention. Oh sure, those who are directly involved show their appreciation but by and large most people pay them no mind until something catches their attention, and that's normally when something has gone wrong.

*Shrugs*

I don't know, cuturally I'm seeing America do what America has always done. Absorb everything else. From Japanese anime and music to British dramas and writing with everything in between as well blurring together into something only Americans can do. "American Crap." :)

It's ours darn it, and I'm glad we have it. It's not what I grew up with, but it's a part of who we are and what we do.

Cyber,

Both sound rather appalling - especially the Coast of Utopia...anything with a kind word for Herzen or Bakhunin is likely going to be pretty bad.

There can be, though, some gems in the slag...but you can't get away and say "just this excellent stuff is art, the rest is dross..."...nope, by all and sundry it is all called art, and the arts community had better start explaining itself...just when did they decide that excrement was art?

And GBS was a semi-brilliant man with extraordinarily half-assed philosophy.

"Contratulations - you are well on your way to becoming a certified crotchety Old Man! Your post reminds me of my father talking about my grandfather talking about Elvis."

Couldn't have summed it up better myself. The sad reality of conservatives. Time marches on, things change, and you can't adapt. You just complain and long for the good ole days when everyone was white and women stayed home to cook for you. Somebody get Mark Noonan a metal detector and some baggy shorts....fast!