Trevor Cunningham"
Mark, just one more:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/01/republican-study-group-proposes-cutting-arts-funds.html
"A key argument, Lynch said, is that the government's existing arts-funding
model follows conservative budgetary principles: A small federal investment
that's important to the health of the nonprofit arts sector helps sustain
its 5.7 million jobs and the $30 billion in annual returns to federal, state
and local coffers that those workers pay in taxes.A key argument, Lynch
said, is that the government's existing arts-funding model follows
conservative budgetary principles: A small federal investment that's
important to the health of the nonprofit arts sector helps sustain its 5.7
million jobs and the $30 billion in annual returns to federal, state and
local coffers that those workers pay in taxes."
I must say that's one amazing piece of creative bookwork, a real stretch to
suggest all the tax dollars coming in from anyone who considers themselves
an artist as being a return on the dollars injected into the industry!
I'm sure there MUST be more valid or at least convincing ways to measure and
state the contribution of the arts. that seems entirely whacked to me!
There's sound arguments both for and against funding the arts.. chronic
wastage is indefensible - and sadly demonstrable in many cases (like the
link I provided in my last post, from a largely socialist society). I'm not
however too fussed how much measurable success in an economic sense our
Australian tax dollars were spent in funding the arts, however I very much
feel it WOULD be nice if those involved in the distribution of funding were
a little less political themselves!!
I've known a number of sculptors, some good beyond words, some not so - and
the grant allocations that they've applied for do not seem directed along
the lines of talent, skill or any other altruistic definition of the
artistic - they seem instead merely to mimic the attitudes or political
opinions of the panels distributing the funding.
I have seen the judging of performance art, dance and music, where the
audience have literally stood and booed the judges decisions when a
substandard, but respectable group of performers have been judged better
than the clearly superior, inspiring efforts of less well regarded groups ..
on a number of occasions. These have been utterly transparent political
decisions in judging - however they've been in public where people have been
able to voice their displeasure and disgust at the obvious bias, not so the
many other judging sessions where funding dollars are involved.
I've seen an internationally recognized, respected individual known for
their lively and innovative interpretations rejected on the grounds that the
panel was "looking for someone younger" (no, this was not a youth project)
Then there are those arts that support themselves rather well, like the film
and music industries. For all their many and varied failures, oh wait - are
they Art or entertainment? The lines blur somewhat.
I've personally known many exceptional musician however who've failed to
break into the commercial scene, and a few who have.. and not all of those
have been commercial success stories.
Art is fickle.
I keep thinking about some books that were hated in their day, sometimes
regretted by the original artist:
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Catcher In The Rye by J.D. Salinger
Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J. R. R. Tolkien
Some of these were so hated that they were recalled and destroyed - some
were burned in the streets! But at least some of these books were out there
to be found later and appreciated, possibly by a matured society, an
audience who had moved into the same mindspace as the author, or at least a
space where they were more receptive to the ideas the books contained..
(wonders, aside from poets, have governments ever sponsored the creation of
prose.. or has this been too mundane?)
It makes me think of all the wonderful overlooked efforts of so many. It
also makes me think of the highly revered artifacts in so many museums that
were possibly underappreciated everyday objects, now seen as far more than
simply 'things' that survived the ravages of time. Clay jars, bottles, bits
of brass and trinkets.
I've also found myself mesmerized by the rollercoaster ride of the art of
posterization - how it went so rapidly from an amazing, innovative adventure
of exploration to populist overuse in commercial art, to crass and
meaningless nothing. How could something so bold entirely loose all meaning
in such a short space of time?
There was a brochure kicking around here for a time titled "Want to know a
good wine when you taste it? Come to our course and we'll teach you how!"
art is very political! (fickle ;)
k
