RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
berdawn wrote >>
Looked like the Westboro bunch was at the Wexner yesterday.
Good on them. I hope they had a chance to express their displeasure and have their say.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Art & Artists
GOP Ascendancy Bodes Ill For Arts Funding
[282 posts] [31 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
rus
Login to Send PM
jeff_r wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
Looked like the Westboro bunch was at the Wexner yesterday.Good on them. I hope they had a chance to express their displeasure and have their say.
So, on one hand any public pressure to remove public funding from any art is censorship... but you think that's a good thing?
Posted 2 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
jeff_r wrote >>
You asked too about how one might evaluate artwork or an artists grant without judging the content or message.
I think the grant review process probably varies depending on the State and agency, but when the Ohio Arts Council reviews proposals for their grants to individual artists, the review criteria listed are as follows:
Creative and inventive use of the medium
Innovation in style and/or concept
Outstanding technical proficiency or craftsmanship
Compares favorably to other work in the field, regionally and nationally
Body of work is consistently high in quality
Exemplifies the highest level of achievement in a discipline
Advances the art form
Artist’s written statement provides context for the body of work
Audiovisual materials are relevant and of high quality
In other words, highly subjective criteria.
I'll ask again, even though I promised myself that I'd let this lie: Do you think that a graven image of Muhammad immersed in urine would *ever* receive public funding?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Are you going to argue that the university should be defunded now?
When Tucker Max spoke at OSU, here was your quote:
Not to mention, OUAB is funded by student fees. I think students have every right to voice an opinion about how their money is spent.
How is that different than taxpayers voicing an opinion about how their money is spent when they disagree with the content?
Posted 2 years ago # -
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
jeff_r wrote >>
You asked too about how one might evaluate artwork or an artists grant without judging the content or message.
I think the grant review process probably varies depending on the State and agency, but when the Ohio Arts Council reviews proposals for their grants to individual artists, the review criteria listed are as follows:
Creative and inventive use of the medium
Innovation in style and/or concept
Outstanding technical proficiency or craftsmanship
Compares favorably to other work in the field, regionally and nationally
Body of work is consistently high in quality
Exemplifies the highest level of achievement in a discipline
Advances the art form
Artist’s written statement provides context for the body of work
Audiovisual materials are relevant and of high quality
In other words, highly subjective criteria.
Given that the thing being evaluated is art, I'd suggest that the criteria listed are as objective as one can reasonably expect them to be. They don't dictate a particular style, and they don't favor a particular medium. They ask that craftsmanship and proficiency be exhibited, and they require that the work stand up to similar works in the field.
I don't imagine that these criteria are any more or any less subjective than the criteria used for the Oscars, the Man Booker Prize, the Newbery Medal, or any other award that seeks to recognize artistic achievement.
More to the point, they're criteria that are content neutral. They offer a way to evaluate work that does not require examination or judgment of the idea being expressed.
gramarye wrote >>
I'll ask again, even though I promised myself that I'd let this lie: Do you think that a graven image of Muhammad immersed in urine would *ever* receive public funding?No, but I might be the wrong person to ask. I would have never thought that Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" would win any awards either.
Now if your point was that there exist different social standards or norms for how different religions are portrayed, you could probably make a strong case. I just don't believe that the answer to any perceived double-standard is to put limits on artistic expression.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
Are you going to argue that the university should be defunded now?
When Tucker Max spoke at OSU, here was your quote:
Not to mention, OUAB is funded by student fees. I think students have every right to voice an opinion about how their money is spent.
How is that different than taxpayers voicing an opinion about how their money is spent when they disagree with the content?Obviously, both groups should just shut up and throw money at whom their betters decide is worthy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
jeff_r wrote >>
Now if your point was that there exist different social standards or norms for how different religions are portrayed, you could probably make a strong case. I just don't believe that the answer to any perceived double-standard is to put limits on artistic expression.Again, and I will continue to insist this as long as you continue to conflate the two: There is a difference between limits on artistic expression and limits on public funding of art.
Posted 2 years ago # -
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
jeff_r wrote >>
Now if your point was that there exist different social standards or norms for how different religions are portrayed, you could probably make a strong case. I just don't believe that the answer to any perceived double-standard is to put limits on artistic expression.Again, and I will continue to insist this as long as you continue to conflate the two: There is a difference between limits on artistic expression and limits on public funding of art.
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. disagrees. As stated in that decision, the government may not act on or restrict expression when it “expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.†The belief being that when the government accepts the role of patron by subsidizing expression from private speakers, it cannot favor one viewpoint over another. It must remain content neutral.
Well, that's exactly the role Congress assigned the NEA when they established it in 1965. The NEA was brought into existence with the expressly stated role of patronizing artists and encouraging artistic expression.
Here's how the Senate Committee Report that accompanied the legislation stated it:
...in the administration of this act there be given the fullest attention to freedom of artistic and humanistic expression. One of the artist's and humanist's great values to society is the mirror of self-examination which they raise so that society can become aware of its shortcomings as well as its strengths...Countless times in history artists and humanists who were vilified by their contemporaries because of their innovations in style or mode of expression have become prophets to a later age. Therefore, the committee affirms that the intent of this act should be the encouragement of free expression. [C]onformity, for its own sake is not to be encouraged, and...no undue preference should be given to any particular style or school of thought or expression.
The U.S. Code echoes this sentiment, stating:
...it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent...In order to implement these findings and purposes, it is desirable to establish a National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
jeff_r wrote >>
gramarye wrote >>
jeff_r wrote >>
Now if your point was that there exist different social standards or norms for how different religions are portrayed, you could probably make a strong case. I just don't believe that the answer to any perceived double-standard is to put limits on artistic expression.Again, and I will continue to insist this as long as you continue to conflate the two: There is a difference between limits on artistic expression and limits on public funding of art.
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. disagrees. As stated in that decision, the government may not act on or restrict expression when it “expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.†The belief being that when the government accepts the role of patron by subsidizing expression from private speakers, it cannot favor one viewpoint over another. It must remain content neutral.
Well, that's exactly the role Congress assigned the NEA when they established it in 1965. The NEA was brought into existence with the expressly stated role of patronizing artists and encouraging artistic expression.
Here's how the Senate Committee Report that accompanied the legislation stated it:
...in the administration of this act there be given the fullest attention to freedom of artistic and humanistic expression. One of the artist's and humanist's great values to society is the mirror of self-examination which they raise so that society can become aware of its shortcomings as well as its strengths...Countless times in history artists and humanists who were vilified by their contemporaries because of their innovations in style or mode of expression have become prophets to a later age. Therefore, the committee affirms that the intent of this act should be the encouragement of free expression. [C]onformity, for its own sake is not to be encouraged, and...no undue preference should be given to any particular style or school of thought or expression.
The U.S. Code echoes this sentiment, stating:
...it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent...In order to implement these findings and purposes, it is desirable to establish a National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Thank you, Jeff.
Best argument I've seen yet for the elimination of the NEA.
If it can not be responsible to the citizens, it should not exist.
Posted 2 years ago # -
wildgoose77
Not at all creative.
Login to Send PM
A Fire in My Belly has been defended as being about AIDS and not about his anger towards the Church, but David’s later motivations should not be retrospectively applied to a film that he made earlier. The Smithsonian has posted a “Q&A†on their website which claims, “This imagery was part of a surrealistic video collage filmed in Mexico expressing the suffering, marginalization and physical decay of those who were afflicted with AIDS.†However, what is being shown on Youtube and elsewhere online is not the original film, its intent has been changed because elements have been added that are misplaced in time. The versions in circulation now both have imposed soundtracks and their meaning is altered with added imagery that was made years later. David made A Fire in My Belly in 1986, before he was diagnosed with AIDS.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
Heard a follow-up story on NPR this morning:
The response of the head of the Smithsonian was to pull the video. That was the wrong move, according an internal review conducted by the Smithsonian's board of regents. "Once an exhibition is opened, absent actual error, things should not be removed without a significant consultation process," said regent Patty Stonesifer during a press conference last week.
Still, attendance at the Portrait Gallery shot up more than 75 percent from this time last year. And David Wojnarowicz, who died almost 20 years ago, is now a free-speech cause celebre. ... Since the controversy erupted, "Fire In My Belly" has been viewed online more than a million times. It's been screened in solidarity by galleries nationwide, and was recently purchased by the Musuem of Modern Art.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
As of 2012, the NEA will recognize interactive media (video games) as an art form.
I don't know who's gonna be more pissed about this, the GOP or Roger Ebert.
Full story: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA
Posted 2 years ago # -
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
Here's what it looks like when a Republican Governor guts their own state's Arts Commission.
Sam Brownback's Crusade Against the Kansas Arts Commission.Why is Brownback picking a public fight over 0.005 percent of a $13.8 billion state budget? He says he believes that private donations, not taxpayer money, should fund arts and culture in the state. But conservative politicians say things like that all day and never act on it because they know that slashing government agencies and programs means slashing jobs. And fewer jobs mean fewer votes come election time.
The difference is Brownback's political ambitions, which extend beyond the Sunflower State. He has already run for president once, and his recent move from the cozy confines of the U.S. Senate to the governor's mansion suggests that he's looking to get a little bit of that sweet "executive experience" Republicans are always talking about before he makes another go at the White House. This is a résumé-building period for Brownback, a time for him to push through statewide legislation that'll endear him to the GOP base in a presidential-nomination race. Privatizing the arts  the sinful, secular, Jesus-hating arts  is a winning symbolic gesture.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
Why artists or any artistic endeavor should attempt to rely on public funding is beyond me. Funding through tax dollars is subject to two constraints- the approval of elected officials and the support of the taxpaying public. The judgment of either entity regarding the merit of any kind of art is certainly suspect. To cite one example, Henry Miller's Topic of Cancer could never have received any kind of public funding (in fact, it was subject to public prosecution) but remains one of the singular artistic achievements of the last century.
Any serious artist should pursue their vision apart from any kind of public funding because the price exacted for that funding is a loss of any kind of independent vision, which remains the wellspring of any real art.
Posted 1 year ago # -
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
Why artists or any artistic endeavor should attempt to rely on public funding is beyond me. Funding through tax dollars is subject to two constraints- the approval of elected officials and the support of the taxpaying public. The judgment of either entity regarding the merit of any kind of art is certainly suspect. To cite one example, Henry Miller's Topic of Cancer could never have received any kind of public funding (in fact, it was subject to public prosecution) but remains one of the singular artistic achievements of the last century.
Any serious artist should pursue their vision apart from any kind of public funding because the price exacted for that funding is a loss of any kind of independent vision, which remains the wellspring of any real art.It's true. There's absolutely no examples to be found of any art of any merit that was funded through the patronage of the authorities of that time. None at all. Ever. In any form whatsoever. No serious artist would ever allow themselves to work under the conditions set forth by those holding the purse strings.
Simplistic arguments are fun!
Posted 1 year ago # -
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
DavidF wrote >>
jackoh wrote >>
Why artists or any artistic endeavor should attempt to rely on public funding is beyond me. Funding through tax dollars is subject to two constraints- the approval of elected officials and the support of the taxpaying public. The judgment of either entity regarding the merit of any kind of art is certainly suspect. To cite one example, Henry Miller's Topic of Cancer could never have received any kind of public funding (in fact, it was subject to public prosecution) but remains one of the singular artistic achievements of the last century.
Any serious artist should pursue their vision apart from any kind of public funding because the price exacted for that funding is a loss of any kind of independent vision, which remains the wellspring of any real art.It's true. There's absolutely no examples to be found of any art of any merit that was funded through the patronage of the authorities of that time. None at all. Ever. In any form whatsoever. No serious artist would ever allow themselves to work under the conditions set forth by those holding the purse strings.
Simplistic arguments are fun!But those "patrons of the arts" were in no way beholden to the sentiments of those from who they extracted their largesse. They simply collected the money and spent it how they pleased, according to their own sensibilities. If the contributing faithful would have complained to Pope Julius about his artistic grants he would have, literally, told them to go to hell.
Posted 1 year ago # -
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
And of course he set no limits or parameters on the art he paid for. My point is that it is simplistic to simply say no "serious" artist should take public funds. Sure, there are many artists whose vision doesn't fall within the constraints of public funding, but by no means does that mean that no work of significance can be produced by someone taking public money.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
jackoh wrote >>
Why artists or any artistic endeavor should attempt to rely on public funding is beyond me. Funding through tax dollars is subject to two constraints- the approval of elected officials and the support of the taxpaying public. The judgment of either entity regarding the merit of any kind of art is certainly suspect. To cite one example, Henry Miller's Topic of Cancer could never have received any kind of public funding (in fact, it was subject to public prosecution) but remains one of the singular artistic achievements of the last century.
Any serious artist should pursue their vision apart from any kind of public funding because the price exacted for that funding is a loss of any kind of independent vision, which remains the wellspring of any real art.I understand the spirit of your post, though I look at the issue from a slightly different perspective. Rather than arguing against public funding for the arts because of perceived constraints, why not argue against those constraints? As noted above, the NEA itself was created, "to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent". In my mind that's a worthy goal, and one we ought to require our leaders to honor.
It's also important to recognize that arts funding at the national and state level has more to do with supporting local and regional arts organizations and non-profits than it does awarding grants and commissions to individual artists. The article I linked above offers a glimpse of how that funding impacts arts organizations in Kansas. Locally, we've seen how public arts funding worked hand-in-hand with private developers to make the Short North what it is today. While the work of individual artists is often the focus of the public arts funding debate, it's not really where most of the money goes.
Finally (and for what it's worth) I'm never quite sure how to respond when someone uses terms like "serious artist" and "real art". Perhaps others feel qualified to decide where one would draw the line regarding those arguably subjective concepts, but I certainly don't.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
Huh. Our GOP state legislature has INCREASED arts funding in the final version of the 2011-12 budget.
http://www.statenews.org/story_page.cfm?ID=15364&year=2011&month=7
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Brant said:
Huh. Our GOP state legislature has INCREASED arts funding in the final version of the 2011-12 budget.http://www.statenews.org/story_page.cfm?ID=15364&year=2011&month=7
Funny, eh?
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.