Romney loses election

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You don't see/know the alternatives, thus you have no basis as to what was potentially suppressed at the expense of what was endorsed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So we need *more* funding for the arts to make sure we're not potentially suppressing anyone?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks for your bald assertions of "potentially suppressed". Something also tells me that art on the size of David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel wouldn't have been funded by religious consumers either .

Also wondering how modern US support for art leads to suppression as well - favoring certain art after all doesn't suppress the other. Making it harder doesn't mean they are crushed.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No had works of art along the lines of David been not suppressed over the ages, it might not have taken until the 1500's to get back to where the Greeks were.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So we need *more* funding for the arts to make sure we're not potentially suppressing anyone?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No had works of art along the lines of David been not suppressed over the ages, it might not have taken until the 1500's to get back to where the Greeks were.

Medieval art is quite beautiful.

Of course Greek statues were covered in colorful paint - the stark white is nicer in the classical type sculpture . That is, of course, obscuring that Greek sculpture was funded by city states as well . The Renaissance saw governments finally have the cash to fund massive works of art, as they did during the "classical" period.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Medieval art is quite beautiful.

An art you have an individual appreciation for. Good show.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not entirely sure what strawmen you are attempting to erect.

Appreciation for art doesn't mean that the market will sustain appreciated art. It usually doesn't. Governments have been the drivers in giving grants to artists to produce pieces that result in individual appreciation. Markets fail to pay the costs of artists or art projects.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You narrowly think of art as a tangible painting or sculpture when in fact it is a means of expression. Songs, literature, drawings, cartoons, all cheaply produced and readily consumed by the market.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All art is an individual and collective means of expression. There is a reason that we speak of Renaissance art or Medieval Art - it starts for a society and its culture. Interesting we speak of art and church colliding - as religion is an individual and collective activity of worship & faith.

One may speak of art being anything that is consumed, but then you are missing the point and the reason why our government (and all Western democracies sponsor art and artists) [ie, the difference between the fine arts and the applied arts].

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You speak of a need for governmental and or institutional funding of art despite an long and storied history of it permitting only its allowable vision of art to come to fruition. Meanwhile there are entire industries of commerical arts be they the entirety of the 20th century film industry, jazz, rock, hip hop to name only a few all succeeding on the merits of the commercial appeal as well as the individual artists freedom to express themselves. So if I have to put up with some shmuck coming up with Gigli so I can have access to The Avengers, well done.

The problem with institutional fundings (particualrly government or psuedo governmenta/religion) of the arts is when they get to monopolize the opinion of what is and isn't "art" that the problem starts.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

One may speak of art being anything that is consumed, but then you are missing the point and the reason why our government (and all Western democracies sponsor art and artists) [ie, the difference between the fine arts and the applied arts].

Emotively there is no difference, if it touches you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not always about individual emotiveness and what, thus, you would pay to see it. Art is also a cultural marker and about collective expression. Reducing it down to just 'what makes you feel' cheapens it and reduces it to the lowest common denominator.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You speak of a need for governmental and or institutional funding of art despite an long and storied history of it permitting only its allowable vision of art to come to fruition. Meanwhile there are entire industries of commerical arts be they the entirety of the 20th century film industry, jazz, rock, hip hop to name only a few all succeeding on the merits of the commercial appeal as well as the individual artists freedom to express themselves.

So government permits only the allowable version of art to come to fruition, but AT THE SAME TIME entire industries of commercial arts that weren't governmentally sanctioned succeeded on commerical merits? How exactly does that work?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It's not always about individual emotiveness and what, thus, you would pay to see it. Art is also a cultural marker and about collective expression. Reducing it down to just 'what makes you feel' cheapens it and reduces it to the lowest common denominator.

Because that is where art is and how it touches you as a receptor of the art and where it lives for the creator as the trasmitter of the art. Art is expression. The commercial aspect of that is merely the aggregate of those responses. Some organization saying this is acceptable or good does nothing for the emotion intended to be conveyed except to the extent it is what the government wants you to feel/think.