"ART" - a One Word Oxymoron

[Garrette]

The fact that governments and Kings have supported art throughout history is hardly a justification for continuing the practice.
Most of us don't support the principle implied in the “Divine Right of Kings”, why should we support the implied principle that some art must have government support?

Cavemonster did not say that some art must have government support; he only demonstrated that JonathanQuick's protests carried no weight.

I also question your linkage of the non-support for the divine right of kings and non-support for government-funded art.

Personally, I support government-funded art, though I admit I am not informed enough to discuss amounts or the decision process on which art is supported. What I can discuss is the fact that I am willing to accept an imperfect model that results in a lot of government-funded crap in exchange for getting the occasional non-crap. Of course, that stance is identical to my stance on nearly every government program because every government program has waste, efficiency, fraud, and elements I don't like.

The cost of living in an imperfect world.

That said, I find nothing distasteful in the stance of those who think no government funds should go to the arts; it's a reasonable stance, too.

 

[Cayvmann]

The evidence you provide shows that insane capitalist speculators have managed to raise prices for amateurish and naive art to ridiculous heights, and that entrepreneurial artists have found ways to produce large amounts of such works and sold them to eager buyers. I'm not sure how the "contemporary left" is to blame.

For a different view on how "art has been corrupted", watch the video linked to in this thread.

I too was thinking that this was just modern Capitalism, at it's best. Why do the righties hate Capitalism???

 

[live830]

I'd say the anti-public funding for the arts position is irrational in its simplicity and ignorance. Art both reflects and shapes its environment, as it has throughout history. It plays a vital role in our culture and attitudes, and because of this, I think it is an important skill/education to hone, and as most people I'm sure are aware, it isn't generally a very lucrative business for artists for most of their lives. As I believe the role of government is to protect and work to enrich our lives, support for the arts would qualify as a function of government.

Also, what do those who oppose government funding for the arts think of public university art courses? Political, religious, and sexual statements are almost always involved in student artwork, with the leadership of an instructor and the [unfortunately little] equipment provided by the school, which is supported by taxpayers. Should we do away with public university art curricula? Public elementary and high school art curricula? Because if you think Piss Christ is bad, imagine how offensive and clumsy a self-discovering, amateurish college student can be in his or her artwork. And OMG, we have to support it!

 

[Garrette]

I'd say the anti-public funding for the arts position is irrational in its simplicity and ignorance. Art both reflects and shapes its environment, as it has throughout history. It plays a vital role in our culture and attitudes, and because of this, I think it is an important skill/education to hone, and as most people I'm sure are aware, it isn't generally a very lucrative business for artists for most of their lives. As I believe the role of government is to protect and work to enrich our lives, support for the arts would qualify as a function of government.

Also, what do those who oppose government funding for the arts think of public university art courses? Political, religious, and sexual statements are almost always involved in student artwork, with the leadership of an instructor and the [unfortunately little] equipment provided by the school, which is supported by taxpayers. Should we do away with public university art curricula? Public elementary and high school art curricula? Because if you think Piss Christ is bad, imagine how offensive and clumsy a self-discovering, amateurish college student can be in his or her artwork. And OMG, we have to support it!

It is the highlighted part (which I added) with which I take issue and which I suspect AvalonXQ and JonathanQuick would take issue.

The rest, I have no problem with.

 

[I Ratant]

The Warhol -painting- of a friggin Coke bottle just sold for $34 million!
WTF!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why would a conservative be complaining about the exorbitant prices paid for pieces of art? Something is worth whatever you can get someone to pay for it, and you deserve to be paid whatever you can convince someone to pay you. Is that not, in a nutshell, conservative economic belief?

 

[Aitch]

No! Artists are supposed to starve in garrets so that people can buy their works cheap and watch them grow in value.

 

[I Ratant]

Why would a conservative be complaining about the exorbitant prices paid for pieces of art? Something is worth whatever you can get someone to pay for it, and you deserve to be paid whatever you can convince someone to pay you. Is that not, in a nutshell, conservative economic belief?

.
I guess.
But the Warhol (many of the Warhol's) aren't original at all!
Just big copies of something.
Valueless to me, unless I was gifted with one.
Then, e-bay!

 

[Garrette]

No! Artists are supposed to starve in garrets so that people can buy their works cheap and watch them grow in value.

Starve in my what?

And next time, don't forget the ending 'e.'

 

[Foster Zygote]

No! Artists are supposed to starve in garrets so that people can buy their works cheap and watch them grow in value.

Preferably buying cheap from old or fast living artists who may soon croak, driving up the price of their art.

 

[Aitch]

Preferably buying cheap from old or fast living artists who may soon croak, driving up the price of their art.

Puts the discerning art-collector on the horns of a dilemma...

Do you slip the artist a couple of bottles of dodgy absinthe, thereby helping him on his way and causing an instant increase in the value of his works and your collection?

Or do you keep him alive and producing more works, thereby increasing the overall number and possibly lowering the prices they fetch individually?

 

[Garrette]

Puts the discerning art-collector on the horns of a dilemma...

Do you slip the artist a couple of bottles of dodgy absinthe, thereby helping him on his way and causing an instant increase in the value of his works and your collection?

Or do you keep him alive and producing more works, thereby increasing the overall number and possibly lowering the prices they fetch individually?

Best of both worlds: Keep him alive and producing but hoard most of the works until after his death (either natural or not). Once his works are valuable, conveniently "find" a piece of his hoarded work throughout the years and live off the proceeds from auction.

Not that I would, um, know anything about actually doing such a thing...

 

[jiggeryqua]

Best of both worlds: Keep him alive and producing but hoard most of the works until after his death (either natural or not). Once his works are valuable, conveniently "find" a piece of his hoarded work throughout the years and live off the proceeds from auction.

Not that I would, um, know anything about actually doing such a thing...

Damn, there's a short story somewhere about a chap who keeps an artist alive and imprisoned while fronting himself as the producer of the work...google is rubbish, you try entering 'oh hey, there's a short story where that happens' and see if it helps...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Puts the discerning art-collector on the horns of a dilemma...

Do you slip the artist a couple of bottles of dodgy absinthe, thereby helping him on his way and causing an instant increase in the value of his works and your collection?

Or do you keep him alive and producing more works, thereby increasing the overall number and possibly lowering the prices they fetch individually?

Either way, it's a great excuse to exercise one's diabolical laugh.

Bwaaa Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!

 

[Garrette]

Damn, there's a short story somewhere about a chap who keeps an artist alive and imprisoned while fronting himself as the producer of the work...google is rubbish, you try entering 'oh hey, there's a short story where that happens' and see if it helps...

You mean I'm a literary genius? Except that I'm not original? And can't write?

LOOK OUT DEAN KOONTZ!!!!!