Ideas

[ebia]

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.

There's a big difference between asking worthwhile questions, and controversery for its own sake.

If art is "just" about beauty, what distinguishes it from any other form of entertainment?

[Symphony]

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.

Should an artist accept handouts?  Sort of, that is what the NEA is offering?

I understand recently that P. Bush did just approve add'l funding for the NEA.

Tibby, if the NEA can't give grants to those expressing views in those three areas, that is, political, religious, or social, what other views would there be, and how would you distinguish those.  I'm not sayig there are not other views, I'm justg wondering what they'd be.

I'm thinking, like for yours earlier, ebia, that maybe the love of Jesus as expressed there in I Corinth. 13 transcends any political agenda?  I'm thinking that love transcends any plitical agenda; and maybe this is what Jesus was talking about all along?

That's why I'm thinking that if true art is a labor of love, that accepting handouts, might be a perversion of that "labor of love"?

BTW, my understanding of Van Gogh, and Gaugin, and others of the fin de sicle movenment, were Bohemian, rather care-free with lives of fairly a dark, loose-living, dismal sort?  Their art was intense and expressive, but their circles were, um...

   

[Tibby]

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

Yes, corrections often do. If the correction was the same thing as the first statement, it wouldn’t be much of a correction, now would it? I am stuck on the paper, because I have 2 great pages of Aesthetic theory. I would not like to thin it out by adding oversized words and writing in circles. And I’ve maxed out the Aesthetic Theory angle. I’d like more ideas.

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

Or maybe I just can't put my thoughts in writings well at times (like 3 in the morning, for example)

If art is "just" about beauty, what distinguishes it from any other form of entertainment?

Talent, my good man (or woman).  True Beauty in art isn’t a run of the mill kind of thing. There is a reason why 10 years from now people will remember who Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead where, but they will have never heard of Johnny Rimshot and the Screaming monkey’s of Joy.

Tibby, if the NEA can't give grants to those expressing views in those three areas, that is, political, religious, or social, what other views would there be, and how would you distinguish those.  I'm not sayig there are not other views, I'm justg wondering what they'd be.

That is the point. No views. Viewless art. Art for Art’s Sake.

That's why I'm thinking that if true art is a labor of love, that accepting handouts, might be a perversion of that "labor of love"?

I like you thinking. But we just need money for paints and canvas and dance shoes and violin strings and bows and stage time and studio time, etc, etc. Labors of love cost money.

BTW, my understanding of Van Gogh, and Gaugin, and others of the fin de sicle movenment, were Bohemian, rather care-free with lives of fairly a dark, loose-living, dismal sort?  Their art was intense and expressive, but their circles were, um...

um... yeah...   Just think of how their art woudl be if they wanted to futher their veiws thru it? It would be totally different, and much freakier! Which is why fin-de-sicle is a good thing.

[ebia]

I'm thinking, like for yours earlier, ebia, that maybe the love of Jesus as expressed there in I Corinth. 13 transcends any political agenda?  I'm thinking that love transcends any plitical agenda; and maybe this is what Jesus was talking about all along?

Depends what you mean I guess - ideally it transends any polical agenda completely - if we all were really able to live by 1 Cor. 13 we wouldn't need any politics, but that isn't going to happen until His Kingdom comes, so in the mean while it informs and guides (hopefully) our politics.

[ebia]

Talent, my good man (or woman).  True Beauty in art isn’t a run of the mill kind of thing. There is a reason why 10 years from now people will remember who Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead where, but they will have never heard of Johnny Rimshot and the Screaming monkey’s of Joy.

So art is just another name for quality entertainment?

In that case, it should be self funding - paid for by those who are entertained.

[Tibby]

Now you are starting to understand things, Ebia. Here in America, people who don’t like Art do not commonly give to the National Endowment for the Arts. Those who DO like art, however, commonly do, and also donate to their local art museums and Symphonies as well. Art is paid for by those who are entertained, through the use of the NEA. With the NEA dealing with the Fans money, it is more important then ever that they support the GOOD art.

Thanks for the good point. I'm going to use that one!

[ebia]

Now you are starting to understand things, Ebia. Here in America, people who don’t like Art do not commonly give to the National Endowment for the Arts. Those who DO like art, however, commonly do, and also donate to their local art museums and Symphonies as well. Art is paid for by those who are entertained, through the use of the NEA.

Thanks for the good point. I'm going to use that one!

Sorry - I assumed (for no good reason) that the NEA was government funded, like the Arts Council in the UK, and whatever its equivalent is called here.

So who elects/chooses/whatever the people who run the NEA?

With the NEA dealing with the Fans money, it is more important then ever that they support the GOOD art.

Presumably, the people who allocate the money think they are supporting good art - no-one would be moronic enough to support what they think is bad art (would they).   They just disagree with you about what constitutes good art.

[sincereheart]

Presumably, the people who allocate the money think they are supporting good art - no-one would be moronic enough to support what they think is bad art (would they).

Ever read "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

 

[Tibby]

NEA does get government funded, as well as donations from the supporters. At least that has always been my understanding.

Sincere- well put.

Lets talk about a few famous "artist" that people support, Ebia. Britany Spears. You know, I was going to make is a list, but I think that just about gets my point across. People will support those with no talent. Don't ask me why, but they will. And all these pre-teen girls copy her and sing like her and dress like her, do they have talent? No, but people support them.

[ebia]

NEA does get government funded, as well as donations from the supporters. At least that has always been my understanding.

In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Lets talk about a few famous "artist" that people support, Ebia. Britany Spears. You know, I was going to make is a list, but I think that just about gets my point across. People will support those with no talent. Don't ask me why, but they will. And all these pre-teen girls copy her and sing like her and dress like her, do they have talent? No, but people support them.

I wouldn't claim for a moment that Britney Spears or any other popular music person was producing art, but that's my call.  How come you get to decide what is art and what is not?

[Tibby]

In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just  the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Then that can speak out about it. It just so happens those who are vocal and active in the NEA are the ones who pay extra money and enjoy the art. If someone who isn’t a fan wants to be active in what to support, they are welcome to. But they don’t .

How come you get to decide what is art and what is not?

Because it is MY paper.

[Symphony]

This thwead makes my head hurt...

[JudgeNot]

No kidding Symph.

I have to write an article covering "Website Collaboration Tools for Large Design-Build Engineering Projects".  

You think I should post for help on this website???        

[Symphony]

Design/Build?  And when you say large, do you mean like civil engineering?  And so you're working on networking software for that?


I doubt if I could "help".  Tho it might depend on what you mean exactly by the word "help".

I could probably mess things up for you really good, tho.  


(hehe)  

[ebia]

In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just  the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Then that can speak out about it. It just so happens those who are vocal and active in the NEA are the ones who pay extra money and enjoy the art. If someone who isn’t a fan wants to be active in what to support, they are welcome to. But they don’t .

No, they should be represented by the body that syphons their money into the NEA, ie the democratically elected goverment.

How come you get to decide what is art and what is not?

Because it is MY paper.