Public Funding of Arts

[Michael]

The only thing that I consider more annoying than 'modern art' is the taxpayer sinkhole that it represents. I just don't understand what public purpose is served by subsidies and grants to 'artists' and then spending millions of taxpayer dollars to buy the crap produced and then spending millions more taxpayer dollars building grand galleries to house the crap, and then spending millions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the staff to run the gallery and complain about how bad attendence is.

The only thing more annoying that that is reading about how everyone is so surprised and shocked by the fact that attendence figures are falling (or rather, continue their fall). There is never any shortage of excuses Arts-lovers offer to explain each year's failure to even match last year's dismal attendance figures. Fact is, the product just isn't popular and no amount of wishing with fingers crossed (or wagging fingers) is going to change that.

The arts collectors, arts bureaucrats, curators, institutional buyers, art professors, are all collectively guilty of creating a monstrosity that few but they themselves (and those who aspire to join this exclusive clique) are interested in. That's all well and fine by me. If they want to make art into an exclusive and elitist game, no problem to me. But if you plan to do it on the taxpayer's nickel, that's my business and I object.

Fact is, there's not an art gallery, museum, opera house or ballet company that can survive in the private market at even a tiny fraction of the size of these institutions. The market has consistently and increasingly ignored these entertainment products. That's how markets work - if your product is a popular one, they will beat down your doors. If your product is an elitist product that no one is interested in, you get the business model of the modern subsidized art gallery - all about tax permanent subsidies and big donations from ego-driven rich people with too much money.

Fact is, attendence records show that the public just doesn't seem to like modern art. This is the giant pink elephant in the room that gallery socialites & art gallery operators just don't get and refuse to acknowledge. The evidence is overwhelming. The only time large public art galleries can bring in a crowd is when they host some exhibition of older art styles. New stuff just doesn't draw an audience. Apparently this 'populism' annoys arts curators and thus shows that can bring in a popular audience are often avoided since they don't showcase what the permanent collection is all about (and that's the only thing that's of interest to the curators - and that's exactly what the public isn't interested in paying to see).

Buying more new stuff and building bigger galleries to house the stuff isn't going to help. If the gallery is filled with 'modern art' you are going to have attendence problems, funding problems and marketing problems. That the reality that all the data points to.

This is NOT A FAILURE OF THE PUBLIC. Stating that the public needs to be educated about the crap they call 'modern art' is not the solution. I don't know what the solution is, but the fault here is the institution and their collection, not the prospective audience refusing to pay to see it.

AGO Bullish on Attendence (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/article721120.ece)

New Gallery has Opening Weekend Attendence Record (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/11/17/ago-attendance.html)

AGO lays off staff as attendance falls short (http://www.thestar.com/article/613665)

These links are just there to demonstrate the typical pattern that gets endlessly repeated. Patrons of the Arts apparently just can't come to grips with the basic unpopularity of modern art and thus every possible excuse is found and elevated - including the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on architectural shock treatment by famous named architects that can't buck the declining attendence figures for anything but one short opening weekend. And then its back to the usual whining about the philistine public that doesn't appreciate great art.

I say get over it and cut the subsidies already. The government has no business subsidizing entertainment. This includes art galleries, museums, performance theaters, sports arenas, ballet schools & symphony orchestras. These all represent massive tax subsidies to elites and rich people and really don't serve any identifiable public purpose.

[Michael]

And just to make one thing perfectly clear. I'm not ranting about cutting government spending.

I'm complaining here about tax money spent on useless stuff that serves little public purpose.

I'd just as soon see the subsidy money here go to pay for free recreational programs for children, summer camps for poor kids, little league baseball, soccer and more public swimming pools and wading pools for little kids and stuff like that. I'd also like to restore all the recreational and sports program cutbacks that have been made with public education.

I pay taxes for this kind of stuff and this is exactly the kind of things that constantly get cut - while millions in annual subsidies for symphonies, art galleries and ballet companies go on and on forever.

If the true market price for a ticket to the symphony is $1000 per seat, then so be it. If all the art galleries are going to close without their subsidies, so be it. If the international art market collapses because public galleries aren't buying the stuff, that's nothing that concerns the taxpayer's business.

I have no objections to private markets. They can do whatever they like. Symphonies, ballet schools, orchestras, art galleries (and artists themselves) can work the private market - I don't see any need or purpose served by taxpaid subsidies here.

[Sucre]

This is because many people think like you and cannot appreciate art that public funding is necessary. Art is useless so yes : tax payer money is spent one useless stuff.

[Michael]

This is because many people think like you and cannot appreciate art that public funding is necessary. Art is useless so yes : tax payer money is spent one useless stuff.

Why should public money be spent to subsidize private art? Can you give any reason?

And if so, why aren't Hollywood movies subsidized? Looks like the same type of product.

[drgoodtrips]

I generally agree with your take on the market supporting it, but here's a Devil's advocate angle:

If I'm out hunting for a new city in which to settle and assuming I have the means and employability to be selective, I sit down to evaluate where I'd like to be. If I'm a relatively cultured/cosmopolitan sort, it might appeal to me to move somewhere that had a whole bunch of art museums, opera houses, and the like. So, I might move to such a city because of who I think it attracts, even if I have no particular interest in or intention of visiting the location in question.

Maybe subsidizing the arts contributes to the caliber of people attracted to the city (in terms of earning power) as well as potentially increased tourism dollars (applying the same logic - maybe when contemplating a city to visit, the existence of a bunch of art museums attracts you even if you never visit them).

Just a thought. But, again, I do agree with you. I think that what I've said here is a bit too hypothetical to be put into actual practice with tax dollars, barring some kind of comparative study on the matter that produces actual, tangible figures in terms of tourism dollars and standard of living impact.

[partofme]

I generally agree with your take on the market supporting it, but here's a Devil's advocate angle:

If I'm out hunting for a new city in which to settle and assuming I have the means and employability to be selective, I sit down to evaluate where I'd like to be. If I'm a relatively cultured/cosmopolitan sort, it might appeal to me to move somewhere that had a whole bunch of art museums, opera houses, and the like. So, I might move to such a city because of who I think it attracts, even if I have no particular interest in or intention of visiting the location in question.

Maybe subsidizing the arts contributes to the caliber of people attracted to the city (in terms of earning power) as well as potentially increased tourism dollars (applying the same logic - maybe when contemplating a city to visit, the existence of a bunch of art museums attracts you even if you never visit them).

Just a thought. But, again, I do agree with you. I think that what I've said here is a bit too hypothetical to be put into actual practice with tax dollars, barring some kind of comparative study on the matter that produces actual, tangible figures in terms of tourism dollars and standard of living impact.

I always wonder about that in terms of attracting tax revenue. If you attract people as far as choosing to live there or bring in people visiting to attend these things then that also causes an increase in tax revenue although probably not as much as it costs. The only thing I can think of in are area that takes some public money is our local public radio station which gets more money from donations but does get some public funds. I listen to it and I must say I know quite a few people including myself that think the news programs are much better than the alternative on radio which is typically talk radio and it also has many music programs I listen to in the car pretty frequently. I know that dollars and cents are a more objective measure but does everything that provides a service have to be measured in dollars and cents? Is USA Today better than The Economist because it has a higher circulation? While I understand the logic by this stance It does bother me to think that classical music is some how less legitimate as an art form than The Transformers because it happens to be able to bring in more money.

[drgoodtrips]

But "legitimate as an art form" is completely subjective.

Let's say that I enjoy bright orange parachute pants. Nobody makes them because there is very little public demand. So, I go out and raise a stink about it, and furthermore, I wage a successful campaign to demonstrate that, like classical music, anyone who doesn't appreciate orange parachute pants and prefers jeans instead is an uncultured idiot who is singlehandedly ruining America's education system. I talk about how they just don't make pants like they used to, and today's jean-makers have no talent - no flair - for true pants-making.

Does it, in this case, make sense for my local government to subsidize the production of these orange pants that hardly anyone wears because they are a "more legitimate art form" than your philistine blue jeans?

(And I draw this parallel as someone who very much enjoys classical music and considers pretty much everything produced in the last 30 years musically not to be worth the garbage can I'd throw it in).

[partofme]

But "legitimate as an art form" is completely subjective.

Let's say that I enjoy bright orange parachute pants. Nobody makes them because there is very little public demand. So, I go out and raise a stink about it, and furthermore, I wage a successful campaign to demonstrate that, like classical music, anyone who doesn't appreciate orange parachute pants and prefers jeans instead is an uncultured idiot who is singlehandedly ruining America's education system. I talk about how they just don't make pants like they used to, and today's jean-makers have no talent - no flair - for true pants-making.

Does it, in this case, make sense for my local government to subsidize the production of these orange pants that hardly anyone wears because they are a "more legitimate art form" than your philistine blue jeans?

(And I draw this parallel as someone who very much enjoys classical music and considers pretty much everything produced in the last 30 years musically not to be worth the garbage can I'd throw it in).

I understand the logic and really I think in many cases these sort of things can fund themselves. What I'm really thinking about is public programming such as News Hour on PBS and NPR programming which is different but still gets to the issue of public funding. Compared to talk radio, cable news channels, and even the networks I can't imagine just letting the private media being all that is available especially considering how bad newspapers are doing.

[drgoodtrips]

I understand the logic and really I think in many cases these sort of things can fund themselves. What I'm really thinking about is public programming such as News Hour on PBS and NPR programming which is different but still gets to the issue of public funding. Compared to talk radio, cable news channels, and even the networks I can't imagine just letting the private media being all that is available especially considering how bad newspapers are doing.

I think that, perhaps, the distinction is in whether or not a useful public service is performed. PBS et al have traditionally been used to broadcast public service announcements, among other things. This would only apply to art museums or concert halls if they, say, periodically housed battered women or some such thing.

[partofme]

I think that, perhaps, the distinction is in whether or not a useful public service is performed. PBS et al have traditionally been used to broadcast public service announcements, among other things. This would only apply to art museums or concert halls if they, say, periodically housed battered women or some such thing.

Good point.

[Michael]

I generally agree with your take on the market supporting it, but here's a Devil's advocate angle:

If I'm out hunting for a new city in which to settle and assuming I have the means and employability to be selective, I sit down to evaluate where I'd like to be. If I'm a relatively cultured/cosmopolitan sort, it might appeal to me to move somewhere that had a whole bunch of art museums, opera houses, and the like. So, I might move to such a city because of who I think it attracts, even if I have no particular interest in or intention of visiting the location in question.

Maybe subsidizing the arts contributes to the caliber of people attracted to the city (in terms of earning power) as well as potentially increased tourism dollars (applying the same logic - maybe when contemplating a city to visit, the existence of a bunch of art museums attracts you even if you never visit them).

Just a thought. But, again, I do agree with you. I think that what I've said here is a bit too hypothetical to be put into actual practice with tax dollars, barring some kind of comparative study on the matter that produces actual, tangible figures in terms of tourism dollars and standard of living impact.
Yes, this is probably the most tangible argument that one can make. We'd certainly need to see some more data to support either argument one way or the other.

Certainly Broadway in New York and Toronto's own musical-theater district are powerful engines of tourism but both are entirely private enterprises. Many people might come to town to see a Broadway show and then visit an art gallery or museum while in town. Or it might be the other way around? Sorting out which 'attraction' is more 'attractive' is inherently tricky business.

A $250 million museum/art gallery might serve as an attractor of tourism and/or prospective citizens from other places. But would a $250 million theme/amusement park not have the same effect? And which one has the greater effect of this type? It would be interesting to see some study data on this stuff, but there are so many extrenuous variables here that actual statistical data wouldn't ever be conclusive about anything.

My point here is about the efficiency of public expenditure. I don't like to see tax money wasted. I don't mind it being used for collective public benefit, but it ought to be money well spent to justify taking it from me in the first place. There's nothing wrong with the arts - I just don't see the reason that unpopular arts ought to be government subsidized when so many other things are not government subsidized that seem to need money as well.

... I know that dollars and cents are a more objective measure but does everything that provides a service have to be measured in dollars and cents? Is USA Today better than The Economist because it has a higher circulation? While I understand the logic by this stance It does bother me to think that classical music is some how less legitimate as an art form than The Transformers because it happens to be able to bring in more money.
Good point. :D

It is precisely this point I've tried to raise in this thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=680). That same discussion can probably be made in terms of the arts as for the environment.

Classical economic theory appears to possess no way to actually place a 'value' on intangible things like the value of subsidized arts and/or polar bears and/or arctic icecaps. This is a critically important problem for economic-political theory to resolve since classical economic theory forms the basis of our 'collective' or official understanding of how the economy functions and public decisions often are made in the name of compatibility with classical economic theory.

That boils down to the same issue here - how can things like the 'the arts' be valued? At present, the only 'yardstick' that is known to be functional is money. That system works, but tends to have big flaws. So how can we get around this problem?

In our present economy, the way the system works is that 'politics' over-rides the market and votes money for certain politically favored sector subsidies (such as public art galleries, museums and opera houses, etc.).

Of course, that's how lots of things are done in our present economy! ;)

Without a method of 'measuring' value that can include the arts (and polar bears and ice-caps), we've got a big problem trying to figure out market priorities for public money.

[dilettante]

I'm complaining here about tax money spent on useless stuff that serves little public purpose.
...
I have no objections to private markets. They can do whatever they like. Symphonies, ballet schools, orchestras, art galleries (and artists themselves) can work the private market - I don't see any need or purpose served by taxpaid subsidies here.

Isn't the short answer that people seem to want there to be public funding for these sorts of things? People seem to like the idea of there being grand, affordable artistic institutions available in their city/state, even if they don't regularly patronize them.
As a local example, I'm willing to bet that people would generally foam at the mouth if the Philly Museum of Art were about to be shut down because public funding was cut; they would demand that the funding be sustained. But chances are those people only actually go to the museum once a year, and maybe not even that often. Nonetheless, its extremely important to them that it be available and that it be affordable to them and their children (and their neighbor's and their children) that one time a year.
I'm not sure there's any obvious way to determine what is "useless" here and what "serves a public purpose."

By the by, how do you feel about publicly funded history and science museums?

[Michael]

Isn't the short answer that people seem to want there to be public funding for these sorts of things? People seem to like the idea of there being grand, affordable artistic institutions available in their city/state, even if they don't regularly patronize them.
People seem to want free entertainment of all variety.

My point is why is some of it publicly funded, and others not? Seems like this is a rather arbitary bias for 'the arts'. Why not fund private sports at the same comparative level? Why not fund billiard halls or bingo halls? Or theme parks? Or public transit? Or public daycare?

I also believe subsidies are by definition inefficient and tend to encourage and reward mediocrity.

As a local example, I'm willing to bet that people would generally foam at the mouth if the Philly Museum of Art were about to be shut down because public funding was cut; they would demand that the funding be sustained. But chances are those people only actually go to the museum once a year, and maybe not even that often. Nonetheless, its extremely important to them that it be available and that it be affordable to them and their children (and their neighbor's and their children) that one time a year.
I'm not sure there's any obvious way to determine what is "useless" here and what "serves a public purpose."
Well, that's the question I'm interested in. Seems like we spend lots of money on things few average people are interested in (by lots of well educated and economically prosperous people like) and don't spend money where it might be more socially beneficial to much larger numbers of people (like public transit or public daycare).

By the by, how do you feel about publicly funded history and science museums?
Depends. If they are entirely conceived and setup as part of the public education network, then sure. If they are just stand alone 'info-tainment' monuments to local government patronage, then no.

One is far better off investing the money into the public education network where one actually can achieve an increase in public awareness/education rather than building some lame architectural monument in an arbitrarily selected place - especially when the taxpayer pays for the building, subsidizes the staff and then has to pay an admission fee to enter.

[Sucre]

Why should public money be spent to subsidize private art? Can you give any reason?

And if so, why aren't Hollywood movies subsidized? Looks like the same type of product.
Again, the response is in your question.

Holywood movies are not art, but entertainment.

Except in the Sowiet Union, maybe (???), art is always a private undertaking ... So yes, tax payer money is used to support private stuff, which may never come to light without this money - and for a small, small, tiny audience ... Yes public money supports the private taste of small minority. I call this anti-discrimination policy.

[Sucre]

But "legitimate as an art form" is completely subjective.

Let's say that I enjoy bright orange parachute pants. Nobody makes them because there is very little public demand. So, I go out and raise a stink about it, and furthermore, I wage a successful campaign to demonstrate that, like classical music, anyone who doesn't appreciate orange parachute pants and prefers jeans instead is an uncultured idiot who is singlehandedly ruining America's education system. I talk about how they just don't make pants like they used to, and today's jean-makers have no talent - no flair - for true pants-making.

Does it, in this case, make sense for my local government to subsidize the production of these orange pants that hardly anyone wears because they are a "more legitimate art form" than your philistine blue jeans?

(And I draw this parallel as someone who very much enjoys classical music and considers pretty much everything produced in the last 30 years musically not to be worth the garbage can I'd throw it in).
But orange pants are not art either - except if they belong to a larger performance and carry a meaning i.e orange pants as opposition to blue jeans and blue jeans as a symbol of American cultural imperialism - which say that Jeans are art :ummm: -

Art is not about "like" or not "like" - It has no market value. Not EVERYTHING in this world is transferable as a market-something-made-for-comsumption ...

[Michael]

Not EVERYTHING in this world is transferable as a market-something-made-for-comsumption ...

Okay, that's fine by me.

Then why are governments required to invent a market for art and pay for it?

If art has no market value, why is there so many market subsidies for it?

[Michael]

Again, the response is in your question.

Holywood movies are not art, but entertainment.

How can you make such clear distinctions? Film is an artform and always has been.

Some art is popular and thus is considered 'entertainment'. But all art is art.

Even the crayon drawings by a child is still art - even if it makes me laugh.


Except in the Sowiet Union, maybe (???), art is always a private undertaking ... So yes, tax payer money is used to support private stuff, which may never come to light without this money - and for a small, small, tiny audience ... Yes public money supports the private taste of small minority. I call this anti-discrimination policy.
I object to public money subsidizing the private taste of a small minority.

That's not what public tax money is meant for. That's an abuse of the public trust and transfers wealth from poor people to rich people.

[Sucre]

Then why are governments required to invent a market for art and pay for it?

If art has no market value, why is there so many market subsidies for it?
What do you mean ?

[Sucre]

How can you make such clear distinctions? Film is an artform and always has been.

Some art is popular and thus is considered 'entertainment'. But all art is art.
No, that's not the distinction.

The art of an elite may be entertaining and art, sometimes, attracts popular taste.

Cinema for that matter has been called the "7th Art".
Cooking may also be art for example.

The difference is in the objective.

Standard Holywood movies (most of them) are there :
1) to have Mr. and Ms Smith forget the hardship of their everyday life
(to entertain them for 90 minutes ...)
2) Make money for the producers and stakeholders in general
(* actually the primary goal!)

Art - in my definition - has at least two different goals/ atrributes on top
3) esthetic
4) philosophical

I know some films - but also some literrary authors, whose research is primarily esthetic/ philosophical - (may be completely boring, no argument there).

The best art is all of that :
1. entertaining
2. popular
3. beautiful (esthetic)
4. philosophical

(Most of) Holywood movies are only 1. and 2. since what is important is not the education/ growth of the viewers but the profit of the producing company.

Even the crayon drawings by a child is still art - even if it makes me laugh.

It does not make me laugh but I agree. One of our best pictures at home is an oil drawing of our daughter when she was 5 years old.

I think that children have the naivity of creation. They have not been spoiled by the educational system to "fit in" a number of norms in a functioning society.

Either it is intuitive art OR it is that the best artists have saved the child within them (Ref. The small Prince)

I object to public money subsidizing the private taste of a small minority.

That's not what public tax money is meant for. That's an abuse of the public trust and transfers wealth from poor people to rich people.
Well, I don't object. The State is here for all its tax payers, not just for the majority of them. They (the majority) anyway get what they like through the private entertainment industry.

In this spirit, I also support public subsidies for :
- rare languages
- special support programmes for those who have difficulties at school, be it for social reasons or ethnic background, or public school offering education in two languages
- support of handicapped people
- train service to small villages on the top of the moutains
- Health care for those who cannot afford it

Public service is for the community - hence everybody. Not just the majority or the profitable.

[Michael]

No, that's not the distinction.

The art of an elite may be entertaining and art, sometimes, attracts popular taste.

Cinema for that matter has been called the "7th Art".
Cooking may also be art for example.

The difference is in the objective.

Standard Holywood movies (most of them) are there :
1) to have Mr. and Ms Smith forget the hardship of their everyday life
(to entertain them for 90 minutes ...)
2) Make money for the producers and stakeholders in general
(* actually the primary goal!)

Art - in my definition - has at least two different goals/ atrributes on top
3) esthetic
4) philosophical

I know some films - but also some literrary authors, whose research is primarily esthetic/ philosophical - (may be completely boring, no argument there).

The best art is all of that :
1. entertaining
2. popular
3. beautiful (esthetic)
4. philosophical

(Most of) Holywood movies are only 1. and 2. since what is important is not the education/ growth of the viewers but the profit of the producing company.
This appears to be the same definition that is used for obscenity in law. "I know it when I see it". It is entirely subjective.

What you are saying is that what is 'art' to one person is 'not art' to another. What is 'crappy art' to one person may well be 'brilliant art' to another. All using the same definitions as you give above (just different values of populism, entertainment, philosophy and esthetics).

But that's neither here nor there (i.e. it matters not to the issue).

Nothing you have said explains why the taxpayer ought to pay for it and that's the issue here, not art itself. Art can be anything anyone wants it to be. Great art is wonderful.

The issue of this topic is, why should the taxpayer be obliged to pay for so much of it?

It does not make me laugh but I agree. One of our best pictures at home is an oil drawing of our daughter when she was 5 years old.

I think that children have the naivity of creation. They have not been spoiled by the educational system to "fit in" a number of norms in a functioning society.

Either it is intuitive art OR it is that the best artists have saved the child within them (Ref. The small Prince)
No.

Art is just a big marketing/entertainment game like any other product on the market - except for the fact that it is more heavily subsidized by the taxpayer (at every level of operation) than any other entertainment product on the market.

If art was actually something special, the drawing of the child would be revered rather than indulged for one's own child.

Religion is actually special - it is revered in every strange form it takes. Modern, commercial or contemporary art is only revered when it has big price-tags attached to it (and/or fat public subsidies).

Well, I don't object. The State is here for all its tax payers, not just for the majority of them. They (the majority) anyway get what they like through the private entertainment industry.
You are apparently asserting that the taxpayer has an obligation to fund unpoplar entertainments just because you like them?

Yes, I will agree that the state is meant to represent all of its citizens, not just its taxpayers. I would say the reason that arts gets heavy public funding is exactly the same reason that oil corporations get public subsidies - and that is because they lobby intensely as a special interest to get it. They are successful for exactly the same reasons too - they serve the interests of the elites.

And the voters are manipulated into voicing indirect approvals at the ballot box that are claimed as justifications for the elite-serving policies.

In this spirit, I also support public subsidies for :
- rare languages
- special support programmes for those who have difficulties at school, be it for social reasons or ethnic background, or public school offering education in two languages
- support of handicapped people
- train service to small villages on the top of the moutains
- Health care for those who cannot afford it

Public service is for the community - hence everybody. Not just the majority or the profitable.
By democratic principles, you are entitled to support anything you like.

The question of this thread is why should I be obliged to pay for what you like and I don't?

[drgoodtrips]

But orange pants are not art either - except if they belong to a larger performance and carry a meaning i.e orange pants as opposition to blue jeans and blue jeans as a symbol of American cultural imperialism - which say that Jeans are art :ummm: -

Well, from times I've been to art museums and had the misfortune to stumble into the "modern art" section, it appears that anything can be art (assuming that the person responsible for it is sufficiently erudite or eccentric or whatever)

Art is not about "like" or not "like" - It has no market value. Not EVERYTHING in this world is transferable as a market-something-made-for-comsumption ...

Why not? :D

[Michael]

Art is not about "like" or not "like" - It has no market value.

I beg to differ. Art is only called "art" once it is worth money. Since so much art has no market value, government subsidies are apparently necessary to create the appearance of market value so the object can be called "art" so that 'art-lovers' can love it.

The proof of this is the child's crayon drawing - which is art, except it isn't worth any money. Thus, no one but bloodkin will praise it or display it.

Get a monkey to splash paint on a canvas and charge $1000 for it and it magically becomes "gallery-art".

The difference here is strictly the financial angle.

But again, this angle, like the point drgoodtrips raises above, is entirely beside the point. The issue here is not whether art is art, or who likes what art, the issue is why governments ought to be obliged to pay for art.

[drgoodtrips]

That's a good point. I didn't really think about it until you said it, but it does seem that the difference between "hobby art" and "true art" is entirely how much someone is willing to pay for it. Ergo, market value isn't just relevant to art - it defines it.

[Michael]

That's a good point. I didn't really think about it until you said it, but it does seem that the difference between "hobby art" and "true art" is entirely how much someone is willing to pay for it. Ergo, market value isn't just relevant to art - it defines it.
Yes, that's my approach to the definition of art as a practical matter.

And that leads me right back to my original point. Why is art so heavily subsidized by the taxpayer?

I would venture to say that the reason is 'validation'. Many 'special interest' groups seek out government approval for their pet passion as a way of claiming 'validation' of their pet passion or cause or interest.

I've often argued that homosexuals are not all that in favor of getting married at all. However, they tend (as a group) to show very high level support for government approval of same-sex marriages. This is a classic case of 'validation'. Once governments permit 'same-sex' marriage, that type of marriage becomes 'valid' and thus affirms to homosexuals that they are part of society. Thus, they demand recognition of same-sex marriage (even if they have no interest in ever getting married).

Same process is duplicated with all kinds of special interest groups - including our ruling elite's passion for elitist arts (those that have virtually no support in the marketplace outside of subsidies and charity). If these arts are worth no money, then there is no 'art' here and that invalidates the passion for art. Thus, our ruling elites make sure that their favorite arts are heavily subsidized to ensure those arts have a market value (artifical though it may be) in order to validate their own passion for elite arts in the first place. No money = not art = no validation.

And that brings round full circle to the OP. Various artforms that cannot survive in the market place (opera, ballet, visual arts, symphony music, etc.) must be subsidized or our ruling elites will feel slighted and silly - they demand validation of their passion and the taxpayer must provide it.

I think you will find the same argument holds for the big tax subsidies that corporations like Exxon suck from the taxpayer as well. The plutocrats and their political enablers need validation of their views too!

[Americano]

Yes, that's my approach to the definition of art as a practical matter.

And that leads me right back to my original point. Why is art so heavily subsidized by the taxpayer?

I would venture to say that the reason is 'validation'. Many 'special interest' groups seek out government approval for their pet passion as a way of claiming 'validation' of their pet passion or cause or interest.

I've often argued that homosexuals are not all that in favor of getting married at all. However, they tend (as a group) to show very high level support for government approval of same-sex marriages. This is a classic case of 'validation'. Once governments permit 'same-sex' marriage, that type of marriage becomes 'valid' and thus affirms to homosexuals that they are part of society. Thus, they demand recognition of same-sex marriage (even if they have no interest in ever getting married).

Same process is duplicated with all kinds of special interest groups - including our ruling elite's passion for elitist arts (those that have virtually no support in the marketplace outside of subsidies and charity). If these arts are worth no money, then there is no 'art' here and that invalidates the passion for art. Thus, our ruling elites make sure that their favorite arts are heavily subsidized to ensure those arts have a market value (artifical though it may be) in order to validate their own passion for elite arts in the first place. No money = not art = no validation.

The ruling elite have structured the tax system to where assets, in this instance art, it could be equity stocks, are taxed when sold on market appreciation, the difference between original purchase price and sale price. A charitable contribution of any Van Gogh would eliminate taxes on a very large estate, especially those with trusts that expire. Any of those markets has to be serviced in order to increase market value to obtain the tax benefits, at taxpayer expense.

And that brings round full circle to the OP. Various artforms that cannot survive in the market place (opera, ballet, visual arts, symphony music, etc.) must be subsidized or our ruling elites will feel slighted and silly - they demand validation of their passion and the taxpayer must provide it.

I think you will find the same argument holds for the big tax subsidies that corporations like Exxon suck from the taxpayer as well. The plutocrats and their political enablers need validation of their views too!

The US general public, to date, in spite of 911, failed major industries (other than defense), social problems that stagger the imagination, now a debtor nation unable to externally pledge it's assets to maintain itself based on repayment faith, merely senses something is wrong with the system. At this point those who are still employed, the majority, don't care about anything except what puts rice in their bowls. Apathy and a strong national police force/military are efficient governing tools as long as the money holds out.

[Michael]

The ruling elite have structured the tax system to where assets, in this instance art, it could be equity stocks, are taxed when sold on market appreciation, the difference between original purchase price and sale price. A charitable contribution of any Van Gogh would eliminate taxes on a very large estate, especially those with trusts that expire. Any of those markets has to be serviced in order to increase market value to obtain the tax benefits, at taxpayer expense.
Excellent point - I forgot about this tax angle. This is just more reinforcement of the same point - tax subsidies/incentives for the arts are primarily a policy that serves the interest of elites.

The US general public, to date, in spite of 911, failed major industries (other than defense), social problems that stagger the imagination, now a debtor nation unable to externally pledge it's assets to maintain itself based on repayment faith, merely senses something is wrong with the system. At this point those who are still employed, the majority, don't care about anything except what puts rice in their bowls. Apathy and a strong national police force/military are efficient governing tools as long as the money holds out.
Well, time does move slowly. I've predicted goose-stepping jackboots on the Washington Mall before I die - things all seem to be moving apace. Quite depressing actually.

[Sucre]

I beg to differ. Art is only called "art" once it is worth money. Since so much art has no market value, government subsidies are apparently necessary to create the appearance of market value so the object can be called "art" so that 'art-lovers' can love it.

The proof of this is the child's crayon drawing - which is art, except it isn't worth any money. Thus, no one but bloodkin will praise it or display it.

Get a monkey to splash paint on a canvas and charge $1000 for it and it magically becomes "gallery-art".

The difference here is strictly the financial angle.

But again, this angle, like the point drgoodtrips raises above, is entirely beside the point. The issue here is not whether art is art, or who likes what art, the issue is why governments ought to be obliged to pay for art.
(Shrug of shoulders.)

Art is not only what worth money ...:erm: (If this were true 90% of the art forms in the word would be dumped unless there is a "market" for them).

That is a very strange definition, to say the least, and I strongly doubt that artists will recognise your, hum, hum "mercantile" approach as their own ...

Trying to follow your line of thought though, I would state it the other way around : art may be worth money once it's recognised as art ...

[Sucre]

Well, from times I've been to art museums and had the misfortune to stumble into the "modern art" section, it appears that anything can be art (assuming that the person responsible for it is sufficiently erudite or eccentric or whatever)

1/ You may have missed the point
2/ There may have been no point and it is not because it is in a museum that there is a point
3/ Maybe the point is that you missed it and that we are having this discussion

Why not? :D
That just is.

[Sucre]

That's a good point. I didn't really think about it until you said it, but it does seem that the difference between "hobby art" and "true art" is entirely how much someone is willing to pay for it. Ergo, market value isn't just relevant to art - it defines it.

I see that both of you are not artists, LOL.

[Sucre]

IGet a monkey to splash paint on a canvas and charge $1000 for it and it magically becomes "gallery-art".
Maybe for you :)

There is a different approach to art, which is the one I outlined above - Aesthetic, philosophy etc. - and you did not comment.

This is the approach taken by artists, at least the ones I know in real life, respectless how much money they are able to make a year.

The difference here is strictly the financial angle.
It's because you probably are not able to make a difference between Pollock and a monkey splashing paint on a canvas. So yes, in this case money makes the difference.

[Sucre]

Art can be anything anyone wants it to be. Great art is wonderful.
What is Art ?

When talking about something, it may be appropriate starting defining first what you are talking about.

If your (personal) definition of Art is that Art is whatever the Market decides Art to be, sure, in this case there is no argument : since it is the Market deciding, the tax payers have noting to say. End of the discussion.

However,
1) I do not agree with your definition - This is why discussing the definition of Art is right in topic
2) Even if I were agreeing, there remains a number of difficulties

What is it that the almighty Market determines to be Art ? What are the criteria ? The "Market" surely has its own criteria. Is Mickey Mouse Art ? Are orange pants Art ? If yes or no, why yes or no ?

This appears to be the same definition that is used for obscenity in law. "I know it when I see it". It is entirely subjective.
Sorry, I completely fail to see the link between my definition of Art with obscenity law :shrug:

Is obscenity ... aesthetic ?

Is obscenity entertaining ?

And what is the deaper philosophy of obscenity (although in some cases art may appear to be obscene I agree...)

Besides, I am quite sure that most people will agree, within a special culture, on what is obscene and what is not, while they will have more difficulties with "Art" - Not whether this is Art or not (as said there is DEFINITION) but whether this is good Art or bad Art.

And, yes, sure, subjectivity is definitely part of the definition and of the perception "good"/"bad".
Why ?
Because Art is something we percieve through our senses - visual arts, musical arts etc. Quite obviously, like for intelligence, senses are more or less genetically determined and further developed through education. Sensitivity will therefore vary from one individual to the other and be formed by his/ her culture.

You are apparently asserting that the taxpayer has an obligation to fund unpoplar entertainments just because you like them?

Yes, I will agree that the state is meant to represent all of its citizens, not just its taxpayers. I would say the reason that arts gets heavy public funding is exactly the same reason that oil corporations get public subsidies - and that is because they lobby intensely as a special interest to get it. They are successful for exactly the same reasons too - they serve the interests of the elites.

The question of this thread is why should I be obliged to pay for what you like and I don't?
What you refer as the "Market" is nothing more than the majority. The "Market" includes tax payers and non tax payers.

If the "Market" decides that Mickey Mouse is Art, it just means that a majority of the people think that Mickey Mouse is Art.

I am simply claiming that the State because it represents everybody, not just the majority, should also do something for the minority. It does so in other occurences, why not for Art ? Well knowing that the minority also includes tax payers.

[Michael]

What is Art ?

When talking about something, it may be appropriate starting defining first what you are talking about.

If your (personal) definition of Art is that Art is whatever the Market decides Art to be, sure, in this case there is no argument : since it is the Market deciding, the tax payers have noting to say. End of the discussion.

However,
1) I do not agree with your definition - This is why discussing the definition of Art is right in topic
2) Even if I were agreeing, there remains a number of difficulties

What is it that the almighty Market determines to be Art ? What are the criteria ? The "Market" surely has its own criteria. Is Mickey Mouse Art ? Are orange pants Art ? If yes or no, why yes or no ?
You can use whatever definition of art you like. Everyone else apparently does.

And the definition of art matters not to this thread. The issue that I see here is all about public subsidies.

I object to public subsidies for private interests that serve no general public purpose.

Subsidizing art that a majority are not interested in does not serve a general public interest.

Sorry, I completely fail to see the link between my definition of Art with obscenity law :shrug:

Is obscenity ... aesthetic ?

Is obscenity entertaining ?

And what is the deaper philosophy of obscenity (although in some cases art may appear to be obscene I agree...)

The definition of obscenity is famously defined as "I know it when I see it" (meaning that the definition is different for every person, it is highly subjective, and defies a specific definition).

That is exactly the same definition as art is.

Besides, I am quite sure that most people will agree, within a special culture, on what is obscene and what is not, while they will have more difficulties with "Art" - Not whether this is Art or not (as said there is DEFINITION) but whether this is good Art or bad Art.

And, yes, sure, subjectivity is definitely part of the definition and of the perception "good"/"bad".
Why ?
Because Art is something we percieve through our senses - visual arts, musical arts etc. Quite obviously, like for intelligence, senses are more or less genetically determined and further developed through education. Sensitivity will therefore vary from one individual to the other and be formed by his/ her culture.

All you are doing is dancing around the fact that the definition of art is highly subjective. That is generally agreed.

You are not providing reasons why taxpayers ought to pay subsidies for unpopular arts. That's the issue of the discussion.

What you refer as the "Market" is nothing more than the majority. The "Market" includes tax payers and non tax payers.
Non-taxpayers are not significant market participants by definition of being poor. Markets require buyers and buyers have money and people who have money pay taxes.

If the "Market" decides that Mickey Mouse is Art, it just means that a majority of the people think that Mickey Mouse is Art.

I am simply claiming that the State because it represents everybody, not just the majority, should also do something for the minority. It does so in other occurences, why not for Art ? Well knowing that the minority also includes tax payers.

Why not subsidize baseball, football and hockey then? Why not subsidize basketweaving? Or bookreading?

The issue is why should the taxpayer subsidize private interests such as unpopular arts? Why bother?

I see only elites forcing taxpayers to subsidize their own elite passions in order to provide validation to their own elite passions because the market doesn't provide validation of their elite passions and validation of themselves is the name of the game. That's it, that's all.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I'd just as soon see the subsidy money here go to pay for free recreational programs for children ... and stuff like that. I'd also like to restore all the recreational and sports program cutbacks that have been made with public education.

I pay taxes for this kind of stuff and this is exactly the kind of things that constantly get cut - while millions in annual subsidies for symphonies, art galleries and ballet companies go on and on forever.

You know, I generally agree with you on this topic but I think that public subsidy for the symphony and for the ballet should continue-- not as a matter of "education" but as a matter of upholding our culture and civilization. Would you argue that modern music and modern dance are not improved by the influence of the classical forms, and would not be better still if those influences were stronger? Pursuing these art forms and encouraging training in them reinforces the value of our culture, and maintaining the originals encourages new artists to experience and be influenced by them.

Where this falls apart is modern "fine art", whether sculpture or canvas, because it does not appear to be influenced by classical fine art, nor by recent "pre-modern" fine art, nor real physical objects, history, myth or anything else for that matter. Modern fine art appears to mainly fall into one of two categories: self-indulgence and obscenity. Supporting these art forms does not contribute in any meaningful sense to the value of our culture and civilization, and it vexes me sorely that my tax money-- while I can scarcely afford to pay taxes at all-- goes to support this garbage.

As far as modern non-performing arts goes, the only fields that appear to have any merit are architecture and pop art. And within the field of pop art, there's actually quite a bit worth supporting. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at tax monies supporting Mary Engelbreit, Sanrio-- even Lisa goddamn Frank, for that matter-- or the visual design teams at Nintendo and Capcom, or the comics industry if I didn't know that they were already well supported by the free market. (Actually... I think the comics industry might be in need of subsidy, now that I think of it.) The art that goes into roleplaying games is sometimes quite stunning, and there are only a couple of companies and a few freelancers that are doing much more than holding their heads above water.

What does all of this art have in common? It is aesthetically pleasing, emotionally provocative, and can be understood by people without an advanced degree in effete sophistry. In other words, it is art that performs all of the functions that supporters of the fine arts claim, and it does so for the most part without subsidy. You can see millions of imitators, some of them brilliant and compelling and unique on their own merits, on "fan art" and "hobby art" websites on the Internet for free, and that is the kind of art that our taxpayer monies should be supporting.

This is because many people think like you and cannot appreciate art that public funding is necessary. Art is useless so yes : tax payer money is spent one useless stuff.

I'm sorry, but I cannot appreciate blasphemy and obscenity, nor art which represents nothing and inspires nothing. That is not art, and should not be publicly funded. In fact, the kind of art that inspires emotional responses, that provokes philosophical thought and touches our souls, is dismissed by these hack artists as "commercial". It is a scam being perpetrated upon honest citizens-- many of them better artists themselves-- by self-important poseurs who are terrified of having to work for a living.

(And I draw this parallel as someone who very much enjoys classical music and considers pretty much everything produced in the last 30 years musically not to be worth the garbage can I'd throw it in).

I'd say there is quite a bit of music from the last 30 years that is worth listening to. The genre of Metal music falls almost entirely within that timeframe, and some of that Metal is incredibly powerful and moving. The recent experimentation of combining Metal with more classical forms, such as symphonic instruments and operatic vocals, is slowly producing an incredible body of work. Country music has only really fallen apart in the last fifteen years or so, and there are still some artists whose work is reminiscent of when it was still called "Country & Western" and when Country stars toured and played with Rock & Roll stars. And, of course, Classical music itself has enjoyed some remarkable contributions in the last 30 years-- consider the compositions of John Williams and Danny Elfman.

[Michael]

You know, I generally agree with you on this topic but I think that public subsidy for the symphony and for the ballet should continue-- not as a matter of "education" but as a matter of upholding our culture and civilization. Would you argue that modern music and modern dance are not improved by the influence of the classical forms, and would not be better still if those influences were stronger? Pursuing these art forms and encouraging training in them reinforces the value of our culture, and maintaining the originals encourages new artists to experience and be influenced by them.
Sure, I'll agree in principle that classical arts are wonderful and ought to be encouraged, taught and/or promoted.

I do however consider tax subsidies for professional entertainment to be absurd. The economic demographics of the audience for state-subsidized symphonies, orchestras and ballet companies (and their playpens) skews heavily to the high end which makes these tax subsidies obscene. These are middle class and upper class entertainments. Why are we using tax subsidies for the entertainment of the wealthiest top-third of the population? :erm:

That is indefensible. Tickets to attend the tax-subsidized orchestra or ballet here in Toronto is $100 to $260 for regular seats (my mother who is a senior and goes to weekday matinee performances of the symphony pays about $50 per ticket - she can afford it quite easily). Those ticket prices are completely outside the range of the other half of the population.

Where this falls apart is modern "fine art", whether sculpture or canvas, because it does not appear to be influenced by classical fine art, nor by recent "pre-modern" fine art, nor real physical objects, history, myth or anything else for that matter. Modern fine art appears to mainly fall into one of two categories: self-indulgence and obscenity. Supporting these art forms does not contribute in any meaningful sense to the value of our culture and civilization, and it vexes me sorely that my tax money-- while I can scarcely afford to pay taxes at all-- goes to support this garbage.
The impermanence of many of these 'post-modern' pieces seems particularly a bad use of taxpayer funds.

As far as modern non-performing arts goes, the only fields that appear to have any merit are architecture and pop art. And within the field of pop art, there's actually quite a bit worth supporting. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at tax monies supporting Mary Engelbreit, Sanrio-- even Lisa goddamn Frank, for that matter-- or the visual design teams at Nintendo and Capcom, or the comics industry if I didn't know that they were already well supported by the free market. (Actually... I think the comics industry might be in need of subsidy, now that I think of it.) The art that goes into roleplaying games is sometimes quite stunning, and there are only a couple of companies and a few freelancers that are doing much more than holding their heads above water.
Well, I certainly do consider that the government ought to indulge in some inspirational architecture even though that is more expensive to build. The permanence and high public visibility of some such buildings offers some 'mass public' justification instead of just another subsidized playpen for the top-third of the population (which is what operas, symphonies and ballets are).

I have nothing against opera, classical orchestras and ballet companies. I just don't see why the taxpayer ought to subsidize professional companies and their commercial showplaces - particularly since these places have ticket prices that are commercially competitive with other (high-end) commerical entertainments (theater or musical performances).

What does all of this art have in common? It is aesthetically pleasing, emotionally provocative, and can be understood by people without an advanced degree in effete sophistry. In other words, it is art that performs all of the functions that supporters of the fine arts claim, and it does so for the most part without subsidy. You can see millions of imitators, some of them brilliant and compelling and unique on their own merits, on "fan art" and "hobby art" websites on the Internet for free, and that is the kind of art that our taxpayer monies should be supporting.

Well, Canada does offer some good data on the utility of arts subsidies in a couple of areas and the results aren't good at all.

For example, in comparing US & Canada, it is handy to use a 10:1 ratio. If the US has ten of something, Canada should have at least one to be roughly 'equal' in proportion. This is a handy way to gauge whether Canada is keeping up with the US marketplace or stagnating as a backwater...

With 20th century literature, Canada manages to match the 10:1 ratio (roughly speaking) of super-big-name-successful novelists and poets. US has ten times as many big-names in this field, but Canada has some equals (Margaret Atwood, Alice Monroe, Farley Mowat, Timothy Findlay, etc.).

It is also to be noted that Canada engages in tax-subsidies for novelists under the principle of promoting "Canadian Culture". You can actually apply for and get 'free grants' of money to sit around and write novels that no one will ever buy. My point is that this generic subsidy program was developed and put in place during the 1970s and has continued ever since. None of the above named authors were a product of that program. They all predate the program, or are considered 'too successful' to need the money.

My point here is that since the advent of this program, Canada has produced exactly ZERO new authors of this level of international calibre. We have LOTS of artsy literary novels that win various highly prestigious Canadian literary prizes and sell barely a 1000 copies (barely enough to cover the cost of print-production). Btw, despite the continuous subsidies for almost forty years now, a notable majority of winners of these esteemed literary prizes tend to come from wealthy old upper-middle-class families (regardless of whether they are local born or foreign born).

The upshot here is that Canada produced a truly great generation of literary novelists in the 20th century and then invented a program to pay tax subsidies to aspiring novelists. Canada has no new great literary novelists.

A second example is popular music. Canada fails miserably on the 10:1 ratio here. Canadian popular music (Country-Western, Rock, Metal, Dance, etc) produces 'superstars' at nowhere near the 10:1 ratio to the USA. Again, this is a field where the Government of Canada has mandated that 20% of all radio music airplay in Canada MUST be Canadian made music (a defacto subsidy for Canadian pop music producers that doesn't actually cost any tax money). This is often called the "Can-Con rules" (Canadian Content). If you violate the rule, the Government can revoke your broadcast license. This program again, originates back in the early 1970s.

The point is that Canada produces lots of new music recordings and a few stars, but only a tiny fraction of the US number (Shania Twain and Celine Dion are the ONLY Canadian music stars that are 'internation super-stars'. I think it is obvious that the USA presently has far more than twenty such contemporary 'superstars').

In both cases, large and sustained Government programs have failed to deliver a product that can be described as anything but 'mediocre'.

And what is the purpose of subsidizing mediocre commerical art? That seems to defeat the whole 'noble purpose' of art itself.

That's the whole question here. I'm not advocating that arts, orchestras, ballets or operas (and painting/sculpture) be banned or anything. Schools & colleges can teach whatever they deem appropriate. Private museums, galleries and collectors can pay for whatever they like. I'm just talking about tax subsidies for professional level entertainments on a permanent basis. That is absurd - and particularly elitist since we don't do this for any other class of art or entertainment - just the ones the rich people like.

[Michael]

What is Art ?

When talking about something, it may be appropriate starting defining first what you are talking about.

If your (personal) definition of Art is that Art is whatever the Market decides Art to be, sure, in this case there is no argument : since it is the Market deciding, the tax payers have noting to say. End of the discussion.

However,
1) I do not agree with your definition - This is why discussing the definition of Art is right in topic
2) Even if I were agreeing, there remains a number of difficulties

What is it that the almighty Market determines to be Art ? What are the criteria ? The "Market" surely has its own criteria. Is Mickey Mouse Art ? Are orange pants Art ? If yes or no, why yes or no ?

I address the Mickey Mouse question later on in this post.

The term "private market" does not require "money valuations". The term applies to all actions of the marketplace, not just buying/selling. Even if you give something away completely free, that's a private market because some people will accept it, and some people may not want it, even if it is free. That's a market - people can 'pay' with their "attention" or "interest" or with "money". All are private markets.

As for art, the definition of it is anything you want it to be. The definition of art doesn't matter to me or my argument. I'm not attacking 'the arts', I'm not proposing any rules or any censorship or any limitation on the arts in any way shape or form.

I'm just saying that direct tax subsidies for particular 'arts' that are notably favored by the top-third of the socio-economic class bracket is a silly and elitist thing to do.

If the taxpayer is going to subsidize "the arts" why just these particular "arts" that just happen to be slightly popular with rich people? Particular "arts" that are way more popular with poor people are completely ignored by such tax subsidies.

How does one define which "arts" get public tax funding and which one's don't?

That's easy. The answer is the ones that are favored by the political and powerful rich people.

I think that answer is silly, though it is true. This is supposed to be a democracy - why am I subsidizing rich people's entertainments?

Sorry, I completely fail to see the link between my definition of Art with obscenity law :shrug:

Is obscenity ... aesthetic ?

Is obscenity entertaining ?

And what is the deaper philosophy of obscenity (although in some cases art may appear to be obscene I agree...)

Sorry, it is a reference to a (famous) statement made by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) a few years back.

SCOTUS pointed out that the term "obscenity" can't be accurately or reasonably defined, other than by the statement "I know it when I see it" (which is an admission that the actual definition in reality is 100% subjective to each individual).

I believe this applies to any definition of "the arts". It is impossible to define, but I know it when I see it. ;)

The point being that the actual definition of "art" is different for every single person and general agreement on that point is going to be next to impossible outside of small culturally-closed groups.

Besides, I am quite sure that most people will agree, within a special culture, on what is obscene and what is not, while they will have more difficulties with "Art" - Not whether this is Art or not (as said there is DEFINITION) but whether this is good Art or bad Art.
Actually, I think this thread demonstrates that there is just as much dispute over the question of "is it art or not art?" as there is over "is it good art or bad art?". Both are equally (and deeply) subjective questions open to wide interpretation.

And again, it doesn't matter to my argument at all. I'll accept everything as art - or nothing - and my argument still stands. I don't think tax subsidies for "arts" that just happen to be favored by rich people is a good use of taxpayer funds (when all other "arts" are not given the same treatment at all).

We can ignore the term "art" entirely and call symphonies, ballets and operas "entertainments" and my argument is exactly the same. Why use tax money to subsidize rich people's entertainments?

What you refer as the "Market" is nothing more than the majority. The "Market" includes tax payers and non tax payers.
Yes, the market as a term covers a very large area. It includes 'free stuff' and charity and people donating their time, not just money.

If the "Market" decides that Mickey Mouse is Art, it just means that a majority of the people think that Mickey Mouse is Art.
Not precisely. I'd say that Mickey Mouse is "art" because it is "art" (cartoons are a great artform in my opinion).

But Mickey Mouse is famous art, because it was commercially successful.

Good art or bad art, I don't really bother to think about very often. How does one compare Mickey Mouse with Michelangelo's David? :shrug:

Even if Mickey Mouse wasn't famous and was only just a sketch by Walt Disney that never got published, it would still be "art" in my opinion - the marketplace is irrelevant to the true definition of "art" as "art". Ultimately speaking, art is anything anyone wants it to be.

I am simply claiming that the State because it represents everybody, not just the majority, should also do something for the minority. It does so in other occurences, why not for Art ? Well knowing that the minority also includes tax payers.
The wealthiest minority? Why them? Why not the middle-minority or the bottom minority? Why not some immigrant minority? Why just the rich ones?

(And I do use the term "rich" very loosely here - anyone in the top third of income is "rich" comparatively speaking, when compared to everyone else)

Indeed, I'd say the state already engages in large amounts of tax subsidies for rich people (and middle-class people). Why always more for just them? As a taxpayer I strongly object to paying subsidies for people who have just as much or more money than I do).

[drgoodtrips]

1/ You may have missed the point
2/ There may have been no point and it is not because it is in a museum that there is a point
3/ Maybe the point is that you missed it and that we are having this discussion

I don't think there's any question, when it comes to "modern art", that I (and everyone) missed the point, if there is one. Whatever the purpose of making such things (my guess is just to make money) is not actually communicated in any real, practical sense. In those cases, the quality of the "art" has nothing to do with the art itself and everything to do with who made it and what people think of the person that did.

And, I really have no qualms about that, except, as Michael points out, when the tax dollars of unwashed masses and art heathens are subsidizing its (pointless) existence.

[drgoodtrips]

I'd say there is quite a bit of music from the last 30 years that is worth listening to. The genre of Metal music falls almost entirely within that timeframe, and some of that Metal is incredibly powerful and moving. The recent experimentation of combining Metal with more classical forms, such as symphonic instruments and operatic vocals, is slowly producing an incredible body of work. Country music has only really fallen apart in the last fifteen years or so, and there are still some artists whose work is reminiscent of when it was still called "Country & Western" and when Country stars toured and played with Rock & Roll stars. And, of course, Classical music itself has enjoyed some remarkable contributions in the last 30 years-- consider the compositions of John Williams and Danny Elfman.

Come to think of it, you're right. I should have qualified what I said about music as culturally popular in the last 30 years. There are heavy metal bands that I have liked, and other, harder to classify bands that have popped up here and there. But, in that timeframe, I have to go hunting for music to enjoy far outside of popular culture. If I had time for such a thing, I wouldn't mind, but realistically, I do not.

[Sucre]

I don't think there's any question, when it comes to "modern art", that I (and everyone) missed the point, if there is one. Whatever the purpose of making such things (my guess is just to make money) is not actually communicated in any real, practical sense. In those cases, the quality of the "art" has nothing to do with the art itself and everything to do with who made it and what people think of the person that did..
How do you define is the "quality" of the art (which criteria) and what makes you think that the artist just wants to make money ?

For that matter, the great majority of artists do not make money and most of them have a side job to pay their rent.

This is especially the case for modern art, since a great deal of the modern stuff is good for being exhibited but has no life outside the exhibition.

[Sucre]

This is an example of modern art - an exhibition (i.e you need to see all works to appreciate the exhibition) but impossible to sell.
(ps. exhibition opening in Berlin last WE)

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs149.snc1/5529_1106247101071_1373605863_30268466_1678809_n.j pg

[drgoodtrips]

How do you define is the "quality" of the art (which criteria) and what makes you think that the artist just wants to make money ?

To the latter, I'm a cynic. To the former, my suggestion is that the quality is defined entirely by what art sophisticates think of the artist. That is, if the artist meets whatever fashion criteria are current in that segment of the populace, the art is considered good. If not, then not. You could probably even reduce it to saying that some maven ultimately makes the decision and everyone else agrees with this person in order to appear sophisticated.

I think of modern art in the same way that I think of avant garde fashion - it's just irrational, collective fitting in. There are no real, objective criteria (or really any criteria) at all. It can all be reduced to watching a few kids sit on a couch and watch a television show. Depending on the mood of the most popular/outspoken kid, he declares his opinion, and the rest agree with him to fit in. This has nothing much to do with the television show, but rather with people's instinctive desire to belong.

For that matter, the great majority of artists do not make money and most of them have a side job to pay their rent.

True enough, but I'm sure nobody's goal is to be a starving artist, but a renowned (and thus generally wealthy) one.

This is especially the case for modern art, since a great deal of the modern stuff is good for being exhibited but has no life outside the exhibition.

I don't really know the inner workings of the modern art world, but I'd assume that someone whose stuff is being displayed in public museums probably is doing all right. And, why not, at that point they're essentially government employees.

By the way, what is the 'art' in that picture you posted? The white, rectangular objects, the people, or the whole room? And, how do you know that it's "good" apart from the fact that it's in the museum?

[Sucre]

To the latter, I'm a cynic. To the former, my suggestion is that the quality is defined entirely by what art sophisticates think of the artist. That is, if the artist meets whatever fashion criteria are current in that segment of the populace, the art is considered good. If not, then not. You could probably even reduce it to saying that some maven ultimately makes the decision and everyone else agrees with this person in order to appear sophisticated.

I think of modern art in the same way that I think of avant garde fashion - it's just irrational, collective fitting in. There are no real, objective criteria (or really any criteria) at all. It can all be reduced to watching a few kids sit on a couch and watch a television show. Depending on the mood of the most popular/outspoken kid, he declares his opinion, and the rest agree with him to fit in. This has nothing much to do with the television show, but rather with people's instinctive desire to belong.
Modern art is about performance. It has to define itself in opposition to photography and to other artistic expressions.

It wasn't always this way. Art used to be religious in Ancient Egypt and in the Middle Ages. Later, it thrived to illustrate the real world. "Good art" looked real according to the bourgeois's taste.

Your own definition as to Art being whatever the Market decides it to be is also culturally determined. It is a typical North-American way of seeing things. I do not mean this in a derogatory way but as a factual statement.

So, there are criteria of definition. They are simply not straightforward.

As for "good" or "bad" - sure, this is subjective. It does not make Art less valuable.

True enough, but I'm sure nobody's goal is to be a starving artist, but a renowned (and thus generally wealthy) one?
Reknown artists are not necessarily wealthy. And they don't even care.

Artists want to be reknown and, as a matter of fact, some are ready to pay for being reknown - for instance in the case of an author paying for the publication of his/ her book ...

I don't really know the inner workings of the modern art world, but I'd assume that someone whose stuff is being displayed in public museums probably is doing all right. And, why not, at that point they're essentially government employees.
I am not aware that artists are government employees :ummm: ...

In the former Soviet Union maybe ?

As for the first part of your post, it is wrong too. The fact that his/ her works are being displayed in a museum just shows that AT LEAST ONE PERSON, the Museum curator, liked the piece of art ... That's it.

[Sucre]

By the way, what is the 'art' in that picture you posted? The white, rectangular objects, the people, or the whole room? And, how do you know that it's "good" apart from the fact that it's in the museum?
I am not sure it is "good" art ... It was not a museum but a private art gallery and the opening day.

To understand the exhibition, it was necessary to see it all - from the cellar (picture above) to the top of the building.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs129.snc1/5529_1106247181073_1373605863_30268468_291953_n.jp g

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs129.snc1/5529_1106247301076_1373605863_30268469_2020333_n.j pg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs149.snc1/5529_1106247141072_1373605863_30268467_5093733_n.j pg

I cannot say whether it was "good" or "bad" - But I can say that I enjoyed it ... At the end ...

(Last picture to show how much you must read to understand what the artist wishes to say ... As a matter of principle, I never read anything on an exhibition or the artist ... )

[Lasher]

Art that isn't able to support itself commercially isn't worthwhile. If an "artist" has to rely on the power of government to forcefully extract funds from the citizenry in order to make a living with his or her "art," then of what real value is it? The NEA and other organizations that extort our money from us via "our" government for the purpose of subsidizing these would-be artists who haven't the talent to contrive something that patrons would willingly purchase, simply for its intrinsic beauty or value, are just as guilty as the government itself of theft and armed robbery of the people.

[Sucre]

Art that isn't able to support itself commercially isn't worthwhile. If an "artist" has to rely on the power of government to forcefully extract funds from the citizenry in order to make a living with his or her "art," then of what real value is it? The NEA and other organizations that extort our money from us via "our" government for the purpose of subsidizing these would-be artists who haven't the talent to contrive something that patrons would willingly purchase, simply for its intrinsic beauty or value, are just as guilty as the government itself of theft and armed robbery of the people.
Do you think that the pyramides of Egypt and the temple of Abu Simel were able to support themselves commercially ?

Do you think that the Cathedral of Chartres was ? And the works of the Impressionists ?

Were they not worthwile ?

[Lasher]

Do you think that the pyramides (sic) of Egypt and the temple of Abu Simel were able to support themselves commercially ?

Do you think that the Cathedral of Chartres was ? And the works of the Impressionists ?

Were they not worthwile ?
What do you mean by "support themselves commercially?" Do you think the Egyptians and the French people were paying taxes to subsidize the construction of those things? LOL. How can you equate the splendor of the Taj Mahal, The Sistine Chapel, and other such places that were financed by the royalty of those periods, with the silly and grotesque daubing of colors on canvas by present day "artists," the garbled and obscene poetry of freaks like Alan Ginsberg, or the insane and ugly "art" such as the picture of a jar of piss containing a crucifix by Andres Serrano? We have no idea why, or by whom, the pyramids were constructed, but it is a certain they can't be replicated today, even with all the resources and modern machinery we have. When the Richard Russell Federal Office Building was being built in Atlanta, Ga. back in the late 70s, the cleaning crew ripped what they figured was a painter's drop-cloth off a wall in the entrance way and threw it in a dumpster, later to be told it was a "work-of-art" financed by the federal government for permanent display. Lasher resents tax money being squandered on such absurd things as that.

[Donkey]

Art is subjective.

[Lasher]

Art is subjective.
Hahahahahahhahahaahhaahha!!!! Great answer. LOL!

[Donkey]

Hahahahahahhahahaahhaahha!!!! Great answer. LOL!
Well it is.

Just because something is big (or small) doesn't make it more worthwhile.

[Lasher]

Well it is.

Just because something is big (or small) doesn't make it more worthwhile.
Who suggested otherwise?

[Zarquon]

What do you mean by "support themselves commercially?" Do you think the Egyptians and the French people were paying taxes to subsidize the construction of those things? LOL. How can you equate the splendor of the Taj Mahal, The Sistine Chapel, and other
The Pyramids and the Taj Mahal were built with forced labour, and the Sistine Chapel and most major European works of art with materials procured from colonies, or by the ill-gotten gains of the Roman Catholic Church.
If you condone 'royalty' or monarchy, the most arbitrary and anti-individual form of govt, then I don't see how you have any justification for opposing the federal govt.

I don't think the state should fund Art, for the same reasons as those already articulated by Michael in this thread.

[Sucre]

What do you mean by "support themselves commercially?" Do you think the Egyptians and the French people were paying taxes to subsidize the construction of those things? LOL. How can you equate the splendor of the Taj Mahal, The Sistine Chapel, and other such places that were financed by the royalty of those periods, with the silly and grotesque daubing of colors on canvas by present day "artists," the garbled and obscene poetry of freaks like Alan Ginsberg, or the insane and ugly "art" such as the picture of a jar of piss containing a crucifix by Andres Serrano? .
You cannot equate a building and a painting.

I therefore do equate the Egyptian pyramids and the pyramid of the Louvre. I do not believe any of them "supported themselves commercially" (your quote refering to your post)

I do not agree with Donkey BTW. Not Art is subjective, but the taste in Árt is.

(This means that many people will love these "grotesque daubing of colors on canvas by present day "artists," even if you don't (shrug))

[Donkey]

Fair enough. :)

[Michael]

Since the original topic is completely dead now, we might as well have some fun with the issue that Sucre seems particularly interested in. :)

On that note, I would like to point out that all of the architectural buildings mentioned here: the pyramids, Chartres Cathedral (my #1 favorite cathedral on the planet!), Taj Mahal and the Sistine Chapel are all specifically religious constructions. That they are all beautiful and artistic is beyond question - that they are "art" I think is debatable. These buildings were built in very specific ways for very specific religious purposes. Is that art?

[Donkey]

Certainly-religious art.

[Michael]

Certainly-religious art.

So is "religious art" a sub-set of "art" or is it a category/classification of "art"?

[Donkey]

So is "religious art" a sub-set of "art" or is it a category/classification of "art"?
Lord if I know (pun intended).

But just because something is religiously motivated in no way makes it not art.

In fact, in a very broad scope of art, you could say anything which engages the creative process is "art."

Then you get into Sucre's post, to make sense of it.

[Michael]

But just because something is religiously motivated in no way makes it not art.
I think this may be theologically problematic. In other words, it makes perfect sense to us atheists, but I'm not sure the Pope would agree.

Representations of the saints (and other 'decorative elements') that may adorn a cathedral are not necessarily there just to look pretty or to give free reign to the artist's creative expression.

In fact, in a very broad scope of art, you could say anything which engages the creative process is "art."
The problem with that theory is that if everything is art, art becomes nothing.

Essentially you are wiping out the term of "art" as something that is "artistic" and defaulting back to the definition of "artifice" which means anything created by humans.

By your definition, the ugliest steel plant in the world is art as much as Chartres Cathedral is.

I think that kind of definition is so broad as to be meaningless. If art is to be meaningless, I'm okay with that, but I doubt if the art lovers will agree to this definition.

(And in light of the original topic, if the public ought to subsidize art, and EVERYTHING is art, then the public ought to subsidize everything).

(And just so I'm not attacked for holding an opinion I haven't expressed, please note that I haven't expressed any opinion about the definition of art here. I have taken no position at all - I have only offered a logic-based critique of Donkey's statement and its obvious implications)

[Sucre]

So is "religious art" a sub-set of "art" or is it a category/classification of "art"?
Of course.

Historically, ALL art was of religious nature ...

It is not a sub category - besides the fact that I do not understand why you would need to have categories, upper or lower categories, sub, middle, upper sets ... -

[Sucre]

Representations of the saints (and other 'decorative elements') that may adorn a cathedral are not necessarily there just to look pretty or to give free reign to the artist's creative expression.
)
But art is not there just to "look pretty". In fact, there is a great deal of ugly art (*)

(*) This is why it makes no sense to discuss whether this is "good" or "bad" art - It is all a matter of taste, culture, education etc ...

[Michael]

It is not a sub category - besides the fact that I do not understand why you would need to have categories, upper or lower categories, sub, middle, upper sets ... -

I don't need to have these things at all. I'm just asking if other people think of art in those terms or what. :shrug:

I don't actually have much of an opinion on this topic at all (topic being what is art?). I'm exploring what other people think about the topic.

In trying to answre the question, I think it is quite relevant to discern if "religious art" is just one type of "art", or if all types of "art" have such descriptive tags applied, or if "religious art" is some special or unique case.

(I'm thinking that maybe we should have a separate thread for this topic afterall since it is radically different topic than the advertised thread topic)

[Sucre]

(I'm thinking that maybe we should have a separate thread for this topic afterall since it is radically different topic than the advertised thread topic)
No, of course, it is the same topic. Depending on what you agree art to be, you would agree it to be public financed or not.

For me it is quite obvious that religious art is art. It is the same as if you were asking if a red dress is a dress.

While I do not mind my tax money being used to finance contemporary art (and, in fact, reading this thread reinforces my opinion), I would mind public money being used to finance religious art - as according to present standards the State is to keep out of anything touching to religion.

----
Addendum : there is no reason to restrict the scope of a thread the way you do - this is restricting the work of the mind. Creativity of thought needs chaos before order.

[jeanlee411]

I always wonder about that in terms of attracting tax revenue. If you attract people as far as choosing to live there or bring in people visiting to attend these things then that also causes an increase in tax revenue although probably not as much as it costs. The only thing I can think of in are area that takes some public money is our local public radio station which gets more money from donations but does get some public funds. I listen to it and I must say I know quite a few people including myself that think the news programs are much better than the alternative on radio which is typically talk radio and it also has many music programs I listen to in the car pretty frequently. I know that dollars and cents are a more objective measure but does everything that provides a service have to be measured in dollars and cents? Is USA Today better than The Economist because it has a higher circulation? While I understand the logic by this stance It does bother me to think that classical music is some how less legitimate as an art form than The Transformers because it happens to be able to bring in more money.
But "legitimate as an art form" is completely subjective.

Let's say that I enjoy bright orange parachute pants. Nobody makes them because there is very little public demand. So, I go out and raise a stink about it, and furthermore, I wage a successful campaign to demonstrate that, like classical music, anyone who doesn't appreciate orange parachute pants and prefers jeans instead is an uncultured idiot who is singlehandedly ruining America's education system. I talk about how they just don't make pants like they used to, and today's jean-makers have no talent - no flair - for true pants-making.

Does it, in this case, make sense for my local government to subsidize the production of these orange pants that hardly anyone wears because they are a "more legitimate art form" than your philistine blue jeans?

(And I draw this parallel as someone who very much enjoys classical music and considers pretty much everything produced in the last 30 years musically not to be worth the garbage can I'd throw it in).

[JHC]

Why make the distinction between modern art and any other kind of art? The Medici's were funding modern art when the renaissance was, heh, heh, nascent.
The purpose of funding art, in general, is to make it accessible to all. It is not something that is thrust upon us by the crown either. It is something that was voted on or allowed to continue.
The government also funds specific scientific research even though it doesn't benefit and probably some of these modern artists could care less.
I don't have a problem with spending tax dollars on things that aren't specifically and directly for me but can enrich society in all manner of mind expanding wonders. (yes, that was a kind of wordplay joke)

[Margot]

Why make the distinction between modern art and any other kind of art? The Medici's were funding modern art when the renaissance was, heh, heh, nascent.
The purpose of funding art, in general, is to make it accessible to all. It is not something that is thrust upon us by the crown either. It is something that was voted on or allowed to continue.
The government also funds specific scientific research even though it doesn't benefit and probably some of these modern artists could care less.
I don't have a problem with spending tax dollars on things that aren't specifically and directly for me but can enrich society in all manner of mind expanding wonders. (yes, that was a kind of wordplay joke)

Art is a cultural gage. Not to sound like a stick-up-the-ass English major or anything, but art is a symptom, not some disease siphoning our coffers.

The OP of this thread is very much against "modern art." But that mentality is indicative of the school of thought which stipulates that art exists in a vacuum. The Modernist movement, for example, did not begin because T.S. Eliot and Marcel Duchamp got together and said "we're bored, let's make a movement!"

Art (all forms), is as relevant to man's understanding of history as a timeline is-- perhaps even moreso. Art is the contextualization of events and stimuli which represents the over-arcing mentality of a society.

The social contract that we have entered into (and that you have referenced, Ma) does not serve the sole purpose of making the abstract concept of art available to all, but also serves to make cultural understanding available to all.

Many of the paintings we have of the saints Roch and Sebastian came from private citizens funding artists with the sole intention of creating an icon to which they could pray to for protection against the plague. We look at these paintings now and understand the symbolism, relevance, and society in which these artists and their patrons lived.

To view this topic in terms of art is a very poor way to view the topic. Art is abstract, the implications of art are not.

[JHC]

^^^^

from my loins.

Margot, outstanding point.

[JHC]

Oh my god! Margot just pulled up an image of a Saint Sebastian painting and I recognized it as the painting I spotted in the hallway of a building at the school just after my microbiology final earlier this week. What a cool coincidence.
I would dearly love to go post a note under that print explaining why St. Sebastian is relevant to health studies.

[Margot]

Oh my god! Margot just pulled up an image of a Saint Sebastian painting and I recognized it as the painting I spotted in the hallway of a building at the school just after my microbiology final earlier this week. What a cool coincidence.
I would dearly love to go post a note under that print explaining why St. Sebastian is relevant to health studies.

If you take a gander at the more heavy-handed representations of Sebastian you'll notice that the arrows are concentrated around the neck, upper thigh(/groin) and armpits.

[Margot]

*gauge.

Seriously, homophones can lick it.

[WFCY]

And just to make one thing perfectly clear. I'm not ranting about cutting government spending.

I'm complaining here about tax money spent on useless stuff that serves little public purpose.

I'd just as soon see the subsidy money here go to pay for free recreational programs for children, summer camps for poor kids, little league baseball, soccer and more public swimming pools and wading pools for little kids and stuff like that. I'd also like to restore all the recreational and sports program cutbacks that have been made with public education.

I pay taxes for this kind of stuff and this is exactly the kind of things that constantly get cut - while millions in annual subsidies for symphonies, art galleries and ballet companies go on and on forever.

If the true market price for a ticket to the symphony is $1000 per seat, then so be it. If all the art galleries are going to close without their subsidies, so be it. If the international art market collapses because public galleries aren't buying the stuff, that's nothing that concerns the taxpayer's business.

I have no objections to private markets. They can do whatever they like. Symphonies, ballet schools, orchestras, art galleries (and artists themselves) can work the private market - I don't see any need or purpose served by taxpaid subsidies here.

You'd have to be aware that modern art (or art in general), operas, and symphonies are mostly consumed by the upper and upper middle class. Sure, there are poor chaps like me who enjoys them as well, but I am not the majority.

Those people don't want to take money outta their private pockets to be entertained. They also happen to make up the strongest electorate and holds all the financial backing of any elected government officials. The only debate within those two classes is how much art should be privatized, and how much in public display, subsidized by tax money. Not whether there should be subsidies for art in general. The art market will not collapse if the galleries close btw. It'll just turn into an internal market, like a hedge fund, where people who can afford will trade, and everyone else can buy postcardsm posters or reproductions from the guys who owns the rights.

If you leave it to a general public vote tomorrow, we'll probabily end up selling off all the priceless treasures from Da Vinci to Pollock, and spend the money on making more spongebob and reality shows.

[Margot]

If you leave it to a general public vote tomorrow, we'll probabily end up selling off all the priceless treasures from Da Vinci to Pollock, and spend the money on making more spongebob and reality shows.

Like I said, art is a cultural gauge. Who is to say spongebob is not as relevant as Da Vinci?

[The Drunk Guy]

Like I said, art is a cultural gauge. Who is to say spongebob is not as relevant as Da Vinci?
Me, that's fucking who.

[JHC]

Me, that's fucking who.

What about Bugs Bunny?

[JHC]

How about Dr. Seuss?

[WFCY]

Like I said, art is a cultural gauge. Who is to say spongebob is not as relevant as Da Vinci?

I don't wanna sound like an elitist asshole- but personally, I stand in awe before the Virgin of the Rocks, even though I am an atheist/agnostic, and it brings me to tears to see the roof and the facades in the Sistine chapel by Michelangelo. These are things which I think if human beings ever go extinct, shall be monumental testaments of our very existence and worth.

Spongebob won't even be close. It should get buried with the rest of the Pokemons and the Yugi-Os and all that crap.

To be relevant, I would like to see the former to stay in the public domain for ever. As for the latter, I don't really care so much.

[WFCY]

How about Dr. Seuss?

screw buzz bunny.

I like Dr Seuss tho, he is cool!

[Donkey]

Like I said, art is a cultural gauge. Who is to say spongebob is not as relevant as Da Vinci?
Talk to me in a few hundred years and see who people are still talking about.

[Michael]

What about Bugs Bunny?

How about Dr. Seuss?

Tough call. I don't think it is possible to pronounce one superior to the other. :ummm:

[Michael]

Talk to me in a few hundred years and see who people are still talking about.

Excellent point. Few considered Leonardo Da Vinci a genius in his own day.

[Michael]

But "legitimate as an art form" is completely subjective.

Let's say that I enjoy bright orange parachute pants. Nobody makes them because there is very little public demand. So, I go out and raise a stink about it, and furthermore, I wage a successful campaign to demonstrate that, like classical music, anyone who doesn't appreciate orange parachute pants and prefers jeans instead is an uncultured idiot who is singlehandedly ruining America's education system. I talk about how they just don't make pants like they used to, and today's jean-makers have no talent - no flair - for true pants-making.

Does it, in this case, make sense for my local government to subsidize the production of these orange pants that hardly anyone wears because they are a "more legitimate art form" than your philistine blue jeans?

(And I draw this parallel as someone who very much enjoys classical music and considers pretty much everything produced in the last 30 years musically not to be worth the garbage can I'd throw it in).

Good points! I don't like seeing tax subsidies for the arts, mostly because it is impossible to decide what is 'special' and worthy and what is not. Different people have different views on that and I don't think there's anyway to decide if those bright orange parachute pants are worthy of tax funding. It is just too subjective.

Btw, welcome to the forum! :welcome:

[Margot]

I don't wanna sound like an elitist asshole- but personally, I stand in awe before the Virgin of the Rocks, even though I am an atheist/agnostic, and it brings me to tears to see the roof and the facades in the Sistine chapel by Michelangelo. These are things which I think if human beings ever go extinct, shall be monumental testaments of our very existence and worth.

Spongebob won't even be close. It should get buried with the rest of the Pokemons and the Yugi-Os and all that crap.

To be relevant, I would like to see the former to stay in the public domain for ever. As for the latter, I don't really care so much.

Uh huh.

But none of that matters two licks. You're still making it subjective, but I'm not making a subjective argument. "Art," whether it be Spongebob or the Madonna, serves the exact same purpose.

"Art" is an abstract. You are trying to make it exist in a vacuum and if you continue to argue on the terms of "the Madonna is better because I like her more" you're going to lose.

Again. Art does NOT exist in a vacuum; it is NOT an abstract thing; it is NEVER just a painting or pretty words or a TV show. It is, I repeat, a cultural gauge.

Are masks from tribal Africa art (and worth keeping)? Are the one-dimensional purely religious paintings of the medieval period art (and worth keeping)? Are cave paintings of gored men with erections and raging bison art (and worth keeping)? Is Godzilla art (and worth keeping)?

What do the tribal masks say about the culture? What do the medieval paintings say about the culture? The cave paintings? Godzilla? You can't decontextualize any of this, just like you can't decontextualize Spongebob.

[Donkey]

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


*flees*

[Margot]

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


*flees*

...Do you have a point?

[Donkey]

...Do you have a point?
Nope. Just being a bitch. :)

[WFCY]

Uh huh.

But none of that matters two licks. You're still making it subjective, but I'm not making a subjective argument. "Art," whether it be Spongebob or the Madonna, serves the exact same purpose.

"Art" is an abstract. You are trying to make it exist in a vacuum and if you continue to argue on the terms of "the Madonna is better because I like her more" you're going to lose.

Again. Art does NOT exist in a vacuum; it is NOT an abstract thing; it is NEVER just a painting or pretty words or a TV show. It is, I repeat, a cultural gauge.

Are masks from tribal Africa art (and worth keeping)? Are the one-dimensional purely religious paintings of the medieval period art (and worth keeping)? Are cave paintings of gored men with erections and raging bison art (and worth keeping)? Is Godzilla art (and worth keeping)?

What do the tribal masks say about the culture? What do the medieval paintings say about the culture? The cave paintings? Godzilla? You can't decontextualize any of this, just like you can't decontextualize Spongebob.

I am not saying there is no overlap, but you do realize that there are fairly clear and commonly acknowledged distinctions between art, and commercial entertainment, right?

[Margot]

I am not saying there is no overlap, but you do realize that there are fairly clear and commonly acknowledged distinctions between art, and commercial entertainment, right?

Draw those lines for me. I want to see them.

[Michael]

I am not saying there is no overlap, but you do realize that there are fairly clear and commonly acknowledged distinctions between art, and commercial entertainment, right?

I suspect those distinctions are artificial and merely serve the self interest of the artists who want/need to sell stuff called "art".

I'm with Margot on this issue. If art can be anything, then art is everything and in which case, art is nothing.

[Americano]

One of the driving forces behind wildly escalated prices for 'old' art are tax laws. A collector's Picasso, etc. with high market demand and appropriate appraisal value donated to an approved not-for-profit entity can service estate taxes on a matured major trust and escape capital gains taxes on its appreciation factor.

[Michael]

One of the driving forces behind wildly escalated prices for 'old' art are tax laws. A collector's Picasso, etc. with high market demand and appropriate appraisal value donated to an approved not-for-profit entity can service estate taxes on a matured major trust and escape capital gains taxes on its appreciation factor.

Exactly. This is just another 'semi-hidden' public tax subsidy for what the rich people like to call art.

The key point I've been making is that the definition of art is a social class thing. Rich people's arts get lots of tax subsidies on a number of levels, while other people's art has to live by the market rules. The definitional distinction between 'high art' and 'low art' is nothing more than the average wealth-class level of the fanbase.

[Americano]

Exactly. This is just another 'semi-hidden' public tax subsidy for what the rich people like to call art.

The key point I've been making is that the definition of art is a social class thing. Rich people's arts get lots of tax subsidies on a number of levels, while other people's art has to live by the market rules. The definitional distinction between 'high art' and 'low art' is nothing more than the average wealth-class level of the fanbase.

Of course it is. The scions of old and new massive wealth could in most cases give a shit less about 'art', it's the ability to say 'I own that' as a peer measurement of wealth and the luxury of using associated layers of applied tax benefits shouldered by the public to retain their wealth.

Those who delude themselves regarding desire of art for arts sake will in most every case never be in a financial position to own major works of art. When they go to a museum or traveling exhibit and gaze fondly on a van Gogh they should realize the cost of that look is trust beneficiaries ordering new luxury cars and summer home renovations on an annual basis. That's just the way the system works.

[The Drunk Girl]

Have you all heard of Marla Olmstead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Olmstead)? I watched a documentary on her last year called My Kid Could Paint That.



Her site with her paintings (http://www.marlaolmstead.com/)

[WFCY]

Draw those lines for me. I want to see them.

Okay, for lack of time, I will raise one point at a time.

First one is the special kind of Mass Culture that emerged after technological advances that allowed for mass reproduction of the original. Different forms of art have turned into mass culture or become commercialized during different periods of time. The oldest probabily goes back to Gutenberg's printing press- since it's 5 centuries ago and partly because we have gotten used to reading replicas- literature as form of art has not been conceptually dependent on the ability to replicate. However, despite modern sound editing and acoustic advances, a symphony, or an opera, or a theater production, they must be seen in the original. A Phenomenologist such as Sergiu Celibidache would for example draw the line even further down- A CD recording of a performance is not only commercial entertainment, it is not art at all, he argues- it's like a photo of his father is not his father. Therefore the experience sitting in a church, or in a concert hall, listening to a piece of Mahler etc, that's art. Likewise, copies of Mona Lisa on a post card are not art. Perhaps the original Spongebob is art, but what you see on TV, is not.

However, the original Spongebob is not really art either. Commercial art, or popular entertainment has the defining attribute that without the ability to replicate, there would be no commercial art, because there would be no motivation for them. Their purpose in general has been to make money by entertaining the masses, more so than "artistic" reasons (others may have talked about in this thread already) which are usually independent of audiences or financial gain. Products created for commercial purposes rely on the ability to replicate in order to sell profitably, so this makes them very distinct from art in general. Movies for example, can be regarded as entirely commercial in this sense- whether some of them are also art (as I said, they overlap), that requires further narrowing down of the definition of art. But my job is to tell you what makes art different from commercial entertainment, not to define art as a whole.

[WFCY]

I suspect those distinctions are artificial and merely serve the self interest of the artists who want/need to sell stuff called "art".

I'm with Margot on this issue. If art can be anything, then art is everything and in which case, art is nothing.

by that token, life is nothing too. :shrug:

[Margot]

Okay, for lack of time, I will raise one point at a time.

First one is the special kind of Mass Culture that emerged after technological advances that allowed for mass reproduction of the original. Different forms of art have turned into mass culture or become commercialized during different periods of time. The oldest probabily goes back to Gutenberg's printing press- since it's 5 centuries ago and partly because we have gotten used to reading replicas- literature as form of art has not been conceptually dependent on the ability to replicate. However, despite modern sound editing and acoustic advances, a symphony, or an opera, or a theater production, they must be seen in the original. A Phenomenologist such as Sergiu Celibidache would for example draw the line even further down- A CD recording of a performance is not only commercial entertainment, it is not art at all, he argues- it's like a photo of his father is not his father. Therefore the experience sitting in a church, or in a concert hall, listening to a piece of Mahler etc, that's art. Likewise, copies of Mona Lisa on a post card are not art. Perhaps the original Spongebob is art, but what you see on TV, is not.

However, the original Spongebob is not really art either. Commercial art, or popular entertainment has the defining attribute that without the ability to replicate, there would be no commercial art, because there would be no motivation for them. Their purpose in general has been to make money by entertaining the masses, more so than "artistic" reasons (others may have talked about in this thread already) which are usually independent of audiences or financial gain. Products created for commercial purposes rely on the ability to replicate in order to sell profitably, so this makes them very distinct from art in general. Movies for example, can be regarded as entirely commercial in this sense- whether some of them are also art (as I said, they overlap), that requires further narrowing down of the definition of art. But my job is to tell you what makes art different from commercial entertainment, not to define art as a whole.



You may not like it, but Spongebob and the Virgin on the Rocks fill the same hole in society. Contemporary viewers were sold religion through a painting of an image that was mass produced by many hands, (all for the same purpose, usually commissioned to the monetary benefit of the artist).

Spongebob is produced more easily, but he provides the same entertainment value, the same commercial value, the same element of profundity and genius (you think being able to sell a talking sea-sponge isn't brilliant?).

Your gripe is not with what is and isn't art. All art fills the same hole in society. Your gripe is with today's society.

[WFCY]

You may not like it, but Spongebob and the Virgin on the Rocks fill the same hole in society. Contemporary viewers were sold religion through a painting of an image that was mass produced by many hands, (all for the same purpose, usually commissioned to the monetary benefit of the artist).

Spongebob is produced more easily, but he provides the same entertainment value, the same commercial value, the same element of profundity and genius (you think being able to sell a talking sea-sponge isn't brilliant?).

Whether I like it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The rest are assertions- for you, religious experience may be the same kind of entertainment as watching spongebob- "same element of profundity and genius", etc, yeah- for you. Well, how is that a point for anything? Another person from the street may or may not agree with that subjective judegement- why is that useful information?

As far as "commercial purposes" and "commercial value" go- was I even talking about these? No. They may be one of the few motivations behind mass production, or even the dominant reason for mass production- but it is the mass production that made mass culture mass culture, not commerce.

Your gripe is not with what is and isn't art. All art fills the same hole in society. Your gripe is with today's society.

My "gripe" has one crucial objective element to it- that of the technological impact on how certain mediums convey their messages, and how these mediums have evolved in their conception as art and their development as something else other than art, due to the advances in replication techniques. This constitutes one of the key distinctions of art from commercial entertainment.

[Michael]

My "gripe" has one crucial objective element to it- that of the technological impact on how certain mediums convey their messages, and how these mediums have evolved in their conception as art and their development as something else other than art, due to the advances in replication techniques. This constitutes one of the key distinctions of art from commercial entertainment.
This stikes me as very interesting. I too am very interested in how mediums shape the message. :)

I'm curious if you could go into a bit more detail on how you see the technology of replication changing art?

[Michael]

Okay, for lack of time, I will raise one point at a time.

First one is the special kind of Mass Culture that emerged after technological advances that allowed for mass reproduction of the original. Different forms of art have turned into mass culture or become commercialized during different periods of time. The oldest probabily goes back to Gutenberg's printing press- since it's 5 centuries ago and partly because we have gotten used to reading replicas- literature as form of art has not been conceptually dependent on the ability to replicate. However, despite modern sound editing and acoustic advances, a symphony, or an opera, or a theater production, they must be seen in the original. A Phenomenologist such as Sergiu Celibidache would for example draw the line even further down- A CD recording of a performance is not only commercial entertainment, it is not art at all, he argues- it's like a photo of his father is not his father. Therefore the experience sitting in a church, or in a concert hall, listening to a piece of Mahler etc, that's art. Likewise, copies of Mona Lisa on a post card are not art. Perhaps the original Spongebob is art, but what you see on TV, is not.

However, the original Spongebob is not really art either. Commercial art, or popular entertainment has the defining attribute that without the ability to replicate, there would be no commercial art, because there would be no motivation for them. Their purpose in general has been to make money by entertaining the masses, more so than "artistic" reasons (others may have talked about in this thread already) which are usually independent of audiences or financial gain. Products created for commercial purposes rely on the ability to replicate in order to sell profitably, so this makes them very distinct from art in general. Movies for example, can be regarded as entirely commercial in this sense- whether some of them are also art (as I said, they overlap), that requires further narrowing down of the definition of art. But my job is to tell you what makes art different from commercial entertainment, not to define art as a whole.

Taking photography for example, it sounds like the 'negative' is art, but any prints made from the negative are just commerical? And once the negative is gone, so is the art? :ummm:

Your argument seems to suggest that books are always just commerical and can't be 'art'.

And what about Gabelin tapestries? Or all canvas paintings after 20th century? Sounds like both must be dismissed as just commerical replication.

Indeed, does the advent of high quality printing presses by definition mean that the Mona Lisa is no longer art since it can be replicated easily now?

This replication argument sounds good, I'm just finding it very tricky to apply across the board.

Does the advent of recording technology mean that music is not art anymore because of the abilities of commerical replication?