Romney loses election

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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?

I believe I addressed this already. When government holds a substantial portion of influence then its voice on the right way of thinking of the populace is overly represented despite an aggregated market response. It is interesting that the industries most successful are those that I mentioned. Due in large part to the ease at which one can enter into the art marketplace and produce emotionally meaningful pieces of art. Consequently it can be argued they have the most dynamic and manifold offerings as opposed to the more confined and constrained works of art.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Expression of what? and for what purpose? A lot of art may be the artist communicating his or her experiences of the mysterious or his or her imagination. Other functions may be communicative or for entertainment purposes. However, it is far more than simply attempting to tug on the emotions of the individual observer.

And I'm not entirely sure how a government promoting an artist gets in the way of the emotion to be conveyed by the artist or the expression he or she desires to show forth. Not sure how a Jackson Pollack was hindered from expressing whatever he wished because he took government grant money. Or what does it mean when the government funds works which are diametrically opposed to one another? Not sure why nefarious ends are the end result at all through the funding of artists the governments believes are deserving of extra funds. I mean does it hinder Brittney Spears if Yo-Yo Ma recieves governmental grant money?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe I addressed this already. When government holds a substantial portion of influence then its voice on the right way of thinking of the populace is overly represented despite an aggregated market response.

I believe you have me confused with those who consider the market to be the "be all and end all" of cultural determinance. There are important works of art that I believe do not flourish in the market, but are worthy of being promoted and protected.

Furthermore I don't those 'aggregated market response' florishing artforms are in any danger due to not getting any NEA grants.

[Felch]

The worst thing that can come of government funded art, is lousy art (and some wasted money). Lousy art is lousy, but it's a damn sight better than pointless wars, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, and invasions of privacy. If financing art distracted the government, and let ordinary people get on with their lives, I'd say go for it. Sadly, that's not how life works.

[giblets]

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.

Why should we believe that art is worth more than what the market will bear?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Expression of what? and for what purpose? A lot of art may be the artist communicating his or her experiences of the mysterious or his or her imagination. Other functions may be communicative or for entertainment purposes. However, it is far more than simply attempting to tug on the emotions of the individual observer.

I said as much, the artist is expressing something. The way in which it is received is something altogether unique and may or may not be what the artist intended to convey. Regardless, the artist felt something and conveyed it. The recipient felt something as well. The two do not have to coincide. Furthermore, an outside party telling the recipient what they should or should not feel/think about the piece is the problem.

Example, you obviously have an affinity for Jackson Pollack given your frequent references to him. Had he not been prominently been given spotlight would you give any of his works of art a second look. Would they have inspired any feeling, thoughts or emotions or did you simply think it a good idea to be classy and think long and hard about it because it had an institutional seal of approval? If not, who were the competing artists that might similarly been even more inspiring but were never given that same governmental seal of approval? Further why and how was that decision made?

As for Brittney vs. Yo-Yo-Ma trope, who is to say which truly is art/music if not the listener?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should we believe that art is worth more than what the market will bear?

Why should we care about the market thinks things are worth as if everything can be reduced to how much it can sell for?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I believe you have me confused with those who consider the market to be the "be all and end all" of cultural determinance. There are important works of art that I believe do not flourish in the market, but are worthy of being promoted and protected.

Says who? You. Who decides? Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said as much the artist is expressing something. The way in which it is received is something altogether unique andmay or may not be what the artist intended to convey. But the artist felt something and conveyed it. The recipeint felt soemthing as well. the two do not have to coincide. Furthermore an outside party telling the recipeint what they should or should not feel/think about the piece is the problem.

We have outside parties telling recipients what we should think or feel about commerical art all the time. What do you think marketing budgets of record companies are for? Or the decisions they make on who to promote and who not to promote. Or heck, critics - their whole industry is devoted to telling the recipient what they should feel. If you don't think they aren't swaying your views as much as (though likely more) than government giving grant money to particular artists than you are smoking something.

Example, you obviously have an affinity for Jackson Pollack given your frequent referneces to him. Had he not been prominently been given spotlight would you give any of his works of art a second look. Would they have inspired any feeling, thoughts or emotions or did you simply think it a good idea to be classy and think long and hard about it because it had an institutional seal of approval? If not, who were the competing artists that might similarly been even more inspiring but were never given that same governmental seal of approval. Further why and how was that decision made?

I mention Pollack because he's generally considered an important artist of the 20th Century. I think his works are very intriguing, but I have others who I appreciate more. However, its not because he's a "name" that I find him to be interesting. Plenty of named artists I don't particularly care for (however, I realize the importance of their works even if I don't particularly care for it). Furthermore, government grants are given to people who have demonstrated talent, throughout history. Sometimes they are commissioned works (ie, David, various memorials) and sometimes they are grants for them to be able to continue their work - but simply getting grant money doesn't elevate an artist to the spotlight - usually he or she is already in the spotlight.

As for Brittney vs. Yo-Yo-Ma trope, who is to say which truly is art/music if not the listener?

While that was not the point of the comment, I don't believe everything gets reduced to commericalism. The point was Brittney isn't suffering if Yo-Yo gets $25,000 to put on a concert by the government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Says who? You. Who decides? Why?

In this country on the federal level, the NEA - because the people have voted for representatives who believe it should be funded, whether Republican or Democratic. Reagan spoke a lot about getting it defunded, but was talked out of it by someof his conservative artist friends (like Charlton Heston) who impressed upon him the need to support the arts, esp those fine arts that wouldn't survive in the marketplace.

On the state and local level, various arts museums (just about all of them recieve government money of some kind) which have been funded through representatives voted by the people of those locations.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

We have outside parties telling recipients what we should think or feel about commerical art all the time. What do you think marketing budgets of record companies are for? Or the decisions they make on who to promote and who not to promote. Or heck, critics - their whole industry is devoted to telling the recipient what they should feel. If you don't think they aren't swaying your views as much as (though likely more) than government giving grant money to particular artists than you are smoking something.

And there is a diversity of each of those examples. Each of which is not so all over reachingly dominating to presumably prevent a monopolistic freedom of artistic expression given the plethoroa of outlets and market alternatives (Anything from free Youtube sensations to the much derided American Idol sendups.) or so dominating as to create artisitic success out of whole cloth in the fashion that government can if it so chooses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And there is a diversity of each of those examples. Each of which is not so all over reachingly dominating to presumably prevent a monopolistic freedom of artistic expression given the plethoroa of outlets and market alternatives (Anything from free Youtube sensations to the much derided American Idol sendups.) or so dominating as to create artisitic success out of whole cloth in the fashion that government can if it so chooses.

Over reachingly dominating? How many NEA grants have you witnessed which has over reachingly dominated the art scene to prevent freedom of artistic expression?

Marketing divisions of record companies have massive power in creating artistic success out of whole cloth simply due to who it promotes and who it does not. And its promotion budgets are FAR FAR higher than the government's (which is something like $100 million for all its projects annually). I guess I don't feel better if its corporations dictating tastes.

[giblets]

Why should we care about the market thinks things are worth as if everything can be reduced to how much it can sell for?

The market is the system through which people exchange their own labor for the labor of others. If I wouldn't voluntarily render goods and services to an artist in exchange for their art, why should the government force me to do so?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The market is the system through which people exchange their own labor for the labor of others. If I wouldn't voluntarily render goods and services to an artist in exchange for their art, why should the government force me to do so?

Because as a collective we have decided that certain art, which does not fare well in the market, is deserving of being supported for its greater cultural impact. Because we believe promoting fine arts, regardless of its market performance, is a good thing to do - kind of like why we may not voluntarily render our goods and services to charities to help the poor, but we're fine with the government forcing us to do so (mostly - there are people who don't like that one bit).

[Aeson]

The worst thing that can come of government funded art, is lousy art (and some wasted money). Lousy art is lousy, but it's a damn sight better than pointless wars, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, and invasions of privacy. If financing art distracted the government, and let ordinary people get on with their lives, I'd say go for it. Sadly, that's not how life works.

I agree, but with reservations.

I do not doubt the ability of governments to find a way for art funding to contribute to real problems in the world. The only reason they don't do so on any large scale is probably because funding for art is so minuscule. Let's take a look at some of the US Government's (purported) excesses, and how funding art could have achieved somewhat similar (and occasionally greater) losses:

Star Wars <-> Space based insanely powerful laser light show that can instantly respond to music played in any local. The USSR would steal this technology, implement it, and begin a laser light show race that would culminate in both nations incinerating city blocks whenever someone forgot themselves and played Saturday Night Fever on their boom box.

Iraq War <-> A trillion dollars worth of giant sculptures of Mohammed having sex with household objects leading to wars with incensed Muslim nations

Obamacare <-> Magnetized, rocket-propelled conglomerations of industrial and medical waste materials released randomly in urban environments to raise awareness of the dangers of industrial and medical waste

Corporate Bailouts <-> Funding a gigantic LCD screen in geosynchronous orbit which is visible nationwide, and shows a loop of random cartoon sex acts performed by Mohammed in GM Vehicles

Farm Subsidies <-> 3 full years of grain harvests purchased, piled in the shape of Mohammed having sex with a Samson (General Motors brand) tractor, and burned as a tribute to remind us of the plight of the malnourished world-wide

War on Drugs <-> World's largest pile of narcotics, piled in the shape of Mohammed smoking a joint, leading to junkies forming militias which fight amongst each other to gain control the pile of narcotics while simultaneously protecting it from Islamist terrorists who want to blow it up