Not every show needs to be balanced in that particular show. Yet the museum can represent the yen and yang of life. I am not saying you need to count the images and if you have 20 images of one thing, you need 20 images of its yang to be balanced. I don't agree that everything has to be political either. Beauty or any of a host of human emotions knows no political party.
Now some things are best to local control. IF a community values a public art museum, and that community values it enough to pay the bills more power to them. But if someone really made 18 bucks for every buck invested, don't you think that's enough that it could support itself? It makes no common sense. Now if the "minks" want to pay for it, companies are willing to sponsor it for the advertising benefit or the improvement in life of the community of which they are a a part great.
It's one thing to have tax dollars to pay for an item with which you don't agree. That happens every where and all the time. You might not think a road, ect insert the item here, is not necessary, and that's part of a republic. You will not agree with everything all the time and that's good. Where I see the big difference is having your tax dollars advocate a point a view with which you do not agree that advocates policy. Having the debate is important. But should tax dollars be used to fund either side of the debate. IMHO No no but *$%# NO. Art is often the debate and that's the problem.
Many of these places have counted on grants for decades, and when money was plentiful (or at least some thought so) there was no real pressure to create a place that could be self supporting. As a result the product I think suffered. The question is can the museums adapt cause the money isn't there like it once was and the grant train is at best going to be cut back if not eliminated entirely. Time will tell.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: museum collections? (now OT)
From: Trevor Cunningham <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, January 26, 2011 9:43 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mark, just one more:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/01/republican-study-group-proposes-cutting-arts-funds.html
On 1/26/11 4:50 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
> I was wondering when this would get political.
>
> On 1/26/11 3:21 AM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I really don't object to politics in art per sey, but I do have a
>> problem with using tax dollars to do it /*(left or right)*/. No one
>> should be taxed to advocate a position, especially one with which
>> they do not agree.
> It's a paradox, really. If we itemize the costs of integral social
> institutions, we find considerable cause to strike our own development
> from the budget. My standard arguments for "I don't want my tax
> dollars paying for [insert budget consideration here]." fall along the
> lines of: 1) "What ever happened to the social contract?" 2) "That's
> what voting is for." [followed with more about the social contract] 3)
> "Why don't we just all move to Indiana and live in the perfect society
> where everybody agrees with everybody else?"
>> Once public money is introduced, it should either be balanced or left
>> out.
> Considering the uncertainty principle, there's no such thing as
> balance. With your model, we can do one of two things: ban all public
> funding of art (including that in schools and any other public
> institution), or decide what people may or may not
> see/experience/discuss/etc.
>
> "(left or right)"...I guess we only have two hands, so there it is.
>
>
