Ideas

[Tibby]

Ok, guys. Last time I was stuck on an English comp paper, you helps. I call upon your services as brothers and sisters once more.

In this paper, I’m arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views, especially those that go against their communities. Any ideas? I’m not really stuck, I just would like to talk about more then just Aesthetic theory throughout the whole paper!!!!

[ebia]

What's the point of art, if it can't ask controversial questions?  Isn't what's left just decoration?

[JudgeNot]

Tibby –Duuuuuude!
You’re going to make me get all political here.  I abhor the National Endowment of the Arts.

political, religious, and social views

Wait a minute – what other ‘views’ are there?  Panoramic and limited?  (Just kidding, brother.)

Since the NEA is funded, in part, by me (and you when you begin paying taxes) the funding of ‘political’ should be left out totally.  Also, since the artwork in the court house in Alabama has been deemed “illegal” because of the ‘religious’ overtones it had (10 commandments) then we also have to leave out religious art (at least overtly – but I’ll get to that).  Which could be a good thing, in retrospect, considering the NEA funded the “art” not too long ago that depicted the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.  

In my opinion, that leaves the social value of art as your best option.  Man – you can really weave, (covertly, of course) the Judeo/Christian backbone of our country into that and no one would be any wiser – after reading your paper the agnostics could have this “warm and fuzzy” feeling and wouldn’t know where it came from.  (He-he-he – who said Christians can’t be wily, hmmm?)  

OK – so what’s my point?  Rather than:

arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views,

Argue in favor of ‘social views only’ – and base the preferred social views as those “in harmony with the majority of the community”.  Brother – believe it or not – the “majority of the community” believes in God.  You are now set to show how they project their beliefs through art, and whether the agnostic recognizes it or not, almost all real art is spiritually based.  

Of course, again, this is only my opinion – and if you should follow up on this opinion and get an ‘A’, then the credit belongs to c-unite.  While, if you get an ‘F’, it is only a stupid opinion you should have seen through from the beginning and ignored…

[Symphony]

I agree with ebia to the point that art should make a statement--something the artist believes about whatever it is s/he is depicting.  Being controversial just for the sake of contraversy I'm not too sure about.  But true art I think should be a statement; otherwise, as ebia says, it's just decoration.

Does art have a place in society?  Someone once said, "Art is the reason we do everything else(mine it, grow it, harvest it, fish it, build it...).  If you take away art, you take away the reason why we do anything at all.  B/c I'm personally a Christian, though, I don't totally agree with that.  But it's a very good point--close to Jesus' proclamation, "Man does not live by bread alone..."

I need to distill JN's point a little further.  Thank you, JudgeNot.

But first, why are you arguing against the NEA?  By choice, or required by your prof?

If it were my choice, I would definitely argue against it, and not just predictably b/c I'm a Christian, or a conservative, etc.

I think the NEA is basically an insult to any self-respecting artist who hopes to establish himself/herself legitimately.  Furthermore, allowing oneself to be beholden to the likes of NEA, etc., compromises the individuality, or independence the artist chose his field for in the first place.  

If an artist can't produce a product that can ultimately support him, then it might be time to rethink careers.  I say might b/c sometimes it can take years b4 a wouldbe artist can realize any recognition.  Dance troupes operate many times at a continuing deficit.  But it's basically the same business proposition any would-be entrepreneur must face:  A business plan that will return enough to live on, without handouts.  Any business man knows that if his product doesn't sell, it isn't the government's fault.

In a capitalist economy such as ours, that is essentially what an artist has to think about first.  He has to be a business man.  In other ways, he has to construct his work in such a way that it at least pays the bills.

I think the NEA, and other efforts similarly, is a well-intentioned, but ill-conceived, attempt at social control; any self-repecting artist who hopes to experience the fulfillment of having someone just buy his art just b/c they like it, should avoid the NEA.  This is perhaps a little harsh, as many community theatres, etc. get a helping hand such as the NEA.

ONe last thing, I have difficulty that in some ways, also, the NEA isn't actually enabling promotion of the less-than-savory "art" appearing in recent years--such as Karen Finley's nude dancing in chocolate, or the crucifix in a beaker of urine, and other "art" apparently sponsored by the NEA, I think.

 Thanks, Tibby.  Good question.   et. al....

[JudgeNot]

I think the NEA is basically an insult to any self-respecting artist who hopes to establish himself/herself legitimately.  Furthermore, allowing oneself to be beholden to the likes of NEA, etc., compromises the individuality, or independence the artist chose his field for in the first place.  

Copious applause!  
Others always seem to be able to make my point much better than I can!
 

[ollie]

An artist's statement should not be supported by public funds.
Some may disagree with the artist's statement so why should they be forced to support it.

The NEA supports homosexual, atheistic and even anti-American statements of art at times. Should a person of God have to support such with His money that goes into public funds, (taxes)?

[Tibby]

Good points. But, this is a topic in favor of Aesthetic Philosophy. Both the Professor and my self are big fans of the Bohemian, fin-de-siecle, art-for-art-sake, Truth-beautiful-freedom-love kind of thing. Besides, this was on the topic of a lost of things I had to pick from, so I must argue from this stance anyways.

Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.

JudgeNot- Thanks for the support from all us artist out there! The NEA is the last place left where TALENT is stronger then cup size! I swear, if we just get these MTV heads to listen to Carmen (The opera, not the Christian), or Celtic folk for an hour, they would never watch MTV again. It is trash. The lyrics are trash, they have NO talent, and they have the gall to call them selves artists! I didn’t know power chording was a skill And Rhyming. Wow, good thing you took K-1! And the rest of us, the ones with skill, who choose not to sleep with record executives, the ones who are to busy working on the art to worry about making sure there message is “controversial” enough to get noticed, without being “controversial” enough to get sued over, we are forced to go to college, get jobs, and do our music “on the side.” You want proof Darwin is wrong? I’ve got it right here. Anyways, thanks for the support. It gives the rest of us a fighting chance!

[ebia]

Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.

Doesn't everyone have some sort of political agenda?  Where do you draw the line once you stop (trying to) judge the art purely on its merits as art?

[ebia]

An artist's statement should not be supported by public funds.
Some may disagree with the artist's statement so why should they be forced to support it.

The NEA supports homosexual, atheistic and even anti-American statements of art at times. Should a person of God have to support such with His money that goes into public funds, (taxes)?

If you go down this route, the government can't spend money on anything because somebody doesn't agree with it.  We all accept that some of our taxes are spent in ways we don't personally agree with, but other  people's money is spent on things we do (which they may not agree with).  Thats all part of doing anything collectively.

[Tibby]

Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.

Doesn't everyone have some sort of political agenda?  Where do you draw the line once you stop (trying to) judge the art purely on its merits as art?

We draw the line AT judging art by merit. Yes, everyone has a political veiws. They don't have to have some agenda to get across in the art. Art for art sake. The expression of your Artistic self is something we should support, but the expression of your political veiws are a whole other story, something that should be done on your own time and dollor.

[Tibby]

The NEA supports homosexual, atheistic and even anti-American statements of art at times.

that is just the problem I'm trying to address. Support good art, not politics.

[ebia]

that is just the problem I'm trying to address. Support good art, not politics.

But if art can't ask questions with political ramifications, what can it do?

"Art for arts" sake is either an oxymoron, a waste of money, or snobbish euphamism for entertainment.

[sincereheart]

I tell you, the more I think, the more I feel that there is nothing more truly artistic than to love people.
--Vincent van Gogh

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.
--G.K. Chesterton

Good art maketh glad the heart of man.
--Jeff Krewson

Every good painter paints what he is.
--Jackson Pollock

The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity.
--Alberto Giacometti

For me, painting is a way to forget life. It is a cry in the night, a strangled laugh.
--Georges Rouault

I want to touch people with my art. I want them to say 'he feels deeply, he feels tenderly.
--Vincent van Gogh

Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye -- it also includes the inner pictures of the soul.
--Edvard Munch

If the artist sees nothing within him, then he should also refrain from painting what he sees before him.
--Caspar David Friedrich

[Tibby]

Ebia, ebia, that is Aesthetic Philosophy is all about. I guess you're not an artist, eh? Well, it is a shame. Men like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Edgar Allan Poe, and Oscar Wilde seemed to think this phrase was a little more then an "oxymoron, a waste of money, or snobbish euphamism." They teach that the beauty of the art is reason enough for one to make and perform it. Art does not in any way have to serve purposes taken from politics and religion to be of value. Maybe you’re a fan of “Eminem” Art, where the only reason it is worth pulling out of the crowd is because it is Controversial, but I’ve never been a big fan of sensationalism.

Good qoutes, sincereheart.

[ollie]

Good points. But, this is a topic in favor of Aesthetic Philosophy. Both the Professor and my self are big fans of the Bohemian, fin-de-siecle, art-for-art-sake, Truth-beautiful-freedom-love kind of thing. Besides, this was on the topic of a lost of things I had to pick from, so I must argue from this stance anyways.

Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.

JudgeNot- Thanks for the support from all us artist out there! The NEA is the last place left where TALENT is stronger then cup size! I swear, if we just get these MTV heads to listen to Carmen (The opera, not the Christian), or Celtic folk for an hour, they would never watch MTV again. It is trash. The lyrics are trash, they have NO talent, and they have the gall to call them selves artists! I didn’t know power chording was a skill And Rhyming. Wow, good thing you took K-1! And the rest of us, the ones with skill, who choose not to sleep with record executives, the ones who are to busy working on the art to worry about making sure there message is “controversial” enough to get noticed, without being “controversial” enough to get sued over, we are forced to go to college, get jobs, and do our music “on the side.” You want proof Darwin is wrong? I’ve got it right here. Anyways, thanks for the support. It gives the rest of us a fighting chance!

Tibby, do you contradict your first post with this post?

Quote 1st post of Tibby: "Ok, guys. Last time I was stuck on an English comp paper, you helps. I call upon your services as brothers and sisters once more.

In this paper, I'm arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views, especially those that go against their communities. Any ideas? i'm not really stuck, I just would like to talk about more then just Aesthetic theory throughout the whole paper!!!!"

 

Maybe it is just me and my inability to comprehend peoples thoughts and the way they put them in writing at times?