Should Arts Be Partially Self Sustaining?

[simms3]

^^^As I said before, money is not the issue, and yes, perhaps we need to revisit using taxpayer money for stadiums, too.  That being said, some crappy artist who can't sell his own work and needs public grants to do so contributes absolutely nothing to society (usually takes away from society with experimental and sometimes offensive artwork all for political ploys).  The stadium has helped put Jacksonville on the map and has provided a real economic benefit to the city.  Perhaps the Jaguars and everyone else who uses the stadium should pay for it completely, but that stadium is used for more than just Jaguars games.  Far more people benefit from the Jags stadium than some crappy artist who relies on public funds because he can't sell his own art on its own merit.  San Francisco did not use any taxpayer money for their newest ballpark.

The Symphony is actually good.  Fabio Mechetti has a great reputation.  The JSO is run really well, promotes itself well (those free concerts are great promotion), and so it is able to attract donors and people are happy to pay to see a concert.  It has taken public monies before, and perhaps not to be hypocritical to my view it shouldn't have, but just like the Jags, if the JSO were on the verge of shutting down, enough people see the value there to come rescue it.  The JSO also produces real art.  Look at some of my examples above of NEA funded art.  Those are just some of many many examples of horrid, offensive "art" that is nothing more than a political message meant to enflame.  If there is a market for that crap, so be it, but most taxpayers do not want their money, $0.10 of it or $10 of it, to go to "Piss Christ."  I'm sure if the NEA or other public grants only funded symphonies, great art museums, etc, people would have far less a problem with them, but that's not the case.

[simms3]

Why does the NEA need to support these works with our money?  I'm not "being indoctinated" and actually Boortz explained how the money first filtered into organizations/publications before being distributed.  Why can't galleries or museums or organizations receive funding from private donors to buy this artwork?  Why do we all have to contribute a couple bucks to the NEA to pick winners and losers in the art world?  Why does Mapplethorpe vary from photos of Lilies and Irises to photos of a man urinating into another man's mouth?  What's his theme?  Why do you automatically dismiss someone like Neal Boortz as being blisteringly dumb and offensively stupid?  He wrote nothing factually incorrect and all of his information is sourced.  If you call it a culture war to be offended that taxpayer money somehow supported some of that crap and still does to this day, then I guess I'm part of that "Culture War".  I know plenty of artists who wouldn't fall for that crap.

Even your own article clearly states that the NEA permitted grants that at least partially supported the development and exhibition of "Piss Christ."  I am a Christian, so yes, the work is not only not artistic to me unless it's purpose was to enflame (for which it was very successful), but insulting.  He could have done anything else in the world and he chose to put a crucifix with Jesus in a jar of his own piss and take an artistically good photo of it.  He could have captured a good photo of literally anything else.  I highly doubt artistic thoughts were in Serrano's mind when creating "Piss Christ."  I would bet that he was excited to create controversy and piss on Christ (literally).

[sheets]

If simms can cite 11 cultural incidents (most of which are described in overly simplified terms and are in fact important works and institutions) to justify ending public funding of the arts can I cite the thousands of innocent people killed by US bombing raids to justify defunding the military? Just wondering, since such a huge portion of my taxes goes to stuff like that and all.

Dont worry simms, the NEA no longer grants funds directly to individual artists, and funding committees are so risk averse in order to avoid controversy, there will never be a publicly funded "piss christ" ever again (even tangentially). Your outrage is about 20 years too late, which is what Stephen alluded to. Next issue.

[Singejoufflue]

IMO, arts funding should be left to private investors but government (federal, state or local) should make no limits on its appreciation in the way of museums, etc.  It is much too subjective to be viewed objectively for grants, but should be funded as part of a well-rounded education, both hands-on and academic (art history, music theory, etc).

[civil42806]

simms.

Try not to be so indoctrinated all the time. Aside from the fact that Boortz is so blisteringly dumb that he crosses over into offensively stupid more times than not, He is also factually incorrect and merely repeating the hysteria campaign started by Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms back in the late 80s.

It was part of the "Culture Wars", which luckily you are too young to have had to pay attention to.  The entire era was as head bangingly irritating as listening to a West Virginian Tea Bagger explain the Federal Reserve and the Soveriegn Citizen Movement. 

Piss Christ was an andre serrano peice that he created more than two decades ago, and it led to needless defundings by the likes of Jesse Helms and the moral majority crowd.  Robert Mapplethorpe wasnt significant because of his sexualized photos, he had pioneered a reputation on the basis of his stunning florals.  The NEA wasn't 'funding' either of these peices, or even those particular artists or that genre.  Its ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Here is the photo:



It wasnt 'funded' by the NEA.  It was part of a competition that received a small percentage of grant money from the NEA.  It wasnt like the NEA had reviewed the work and decided to give money to sponsor the work.  The NEA gave the money to an organization, and that organization went on to sponsor a competition, and Serrano placed in the competition with an entire series of photos, amongst them the controversial one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9viccUYUSVYC&pg=PA100&dq=serrano+piss+christ+yellow+liquid&hl=en#v=onepage&q=serrano%20piss%20christ%20yellow%20liquid&f=false


There is plenty of material on the web to research before you make these well meaning but madly misinformed claims.

Here is the wikipedia article on Mapplethorpe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe

In June 1989, pop artist Lowell Blair Nesbitt became involved with a scandal involving Mapplethorpe's work. The Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. had agreed to host a traveling solo exhibit of Mapplethorpe's works, without making a stipulation as to what type of subject matter would be used. Mapplethorpe decided to show a new series that he had explored shortly before his death, Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment curated by Janet Kardon of the Institute of Contemporary Art.[12] The hierarchy of the Corcoran and several members of Congress were horrified when the works were revealed to them, and the museum refused to go forth with the exhibit. It was at this time that Nesbitt, a long-time friend of Mapplethorpe, revealed that he had a $1.5 million bequest to the museum in his will. Nesbitt publicly promised that if the museum refused to host the exhibition he would revoke his bequest. The Corcoran refused and Nesbitt bequeathed the money to the Phillips Collection instead.

After the Corcoran refused the Mapplethorpe exhibition, the underwriters of the exhibition went to the nonprofit Washington Project for the Arts,[13] which showed the controversial images in its own space from July 21 - August 13, 1989, to large crowds.

Here is an example of the Black and White florals that he had actually been famous for before the controversial show:

Does anyone remember the "burning the koran" thread and the passionate arguments  to please respect everyones religion .  Whatever happened to that guy? 

[RiversideLoki]

Artists themselves (if they're talented enough) can be self sustaining. However, the arts as a whole need to be advocated for on behalf of the public. Funding of artistic programs, galleries, and symphonies is absolutely essential if for nothing else than advertising revenue.

There's a reason that they call them "starving artists". Because some frequently are. This may be because they're just not good at marketing themselves, or they aren't sure HOW to market themselves, or their art is so out there that they haven't found their niche yet. (I don't think I'll ever say someone's art sucks again in my life btw. All art is subjective. I've seen some weeeirrrdd stuff in my time that people have paid thousands of dollars for that leave me scratching my head.)

I will say this from my experience at the gallery I used to be a part of, working with artists and coalescing them into a coherent group of people working together for a common goal is like herding cats. Artists have egos, are hard to work with, and can generally be a pain in the a-double-s. But that's because they're creatives.

It takes a brave person to advocate on the behalf of the artist community.

[ChriswUfGator]

There was a period in the history of literature when people produced pieces of literature just for the sake of enjoyment and their creative satisfaction.This was known as "Art for art's sake".When they could do it in that age, why can't we do it now?Art can sustain by itself if the artist is loyal towards his work and indulges in it for his personal pleasure not for appreciation.

When was this?

[tayana42]

From Simms3
"The above long quote is a series of excerpts from the chapter "Shining a Light on Arts Funding" from Somebody's Gotta Say It, a book written in 2007 by Neal Boortz." 

Per Wikipedia:  "Boortz went on to write speeches for the segregationist Governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox."  Tells you just about all you need to know about art critic Boortz.