Should government subsidize the arts?

[Anderton]

Watched the debate last night...both candidates talked about the importance of education, but not surprisingly, provided zero details on how the CURRICULUM would change. Do they favor more rote memorization? Restoring teaching the arts? Would music be as important as football? We won't find out until one of them gets in, I guess.

 

But it also triggered some other thoughts. Every year, the National Endowment of the Arts has to fight for funding. PBS depends more and more on corporate sponsors. The level of governmental support for the arts is far lower than in, for example, Europe.

 

I remember seeing some beautiful industrial parks in Holland, and commenting to my friend about how the companies really seemed to have a handle on industrial design. That's when he told me that there was some sort of law that companies needed to spend 2% of the budget for a building on artwork and beautification.

 

Now, part of me says that government has no business getting involved in mandating this sort of thing. After all, this is a free country. But part of me can't help but remember how beautiful a friggin' industrial park looked!

 

Think of the billions of dollars going to "corporate welfare," where huge, highly profitable corporations pay little or no taxes, or have incredible business blunders written off by the taxpayers (Chrysler, the S&L scandal). Okay, so the US taxpayer saved Chrysler...but they never sent me a thank-you note, with an offer for 50% off my next car purchase. Why not divert some of that pork barrel fat to something that benefits the public?

 

Is it the job of government to attempt to legislate improvements in the quality of life, specifically with the arts? The arts don't put gas in cars or keep homeless people off the streets, but there's no doubt in my mind that walking around places that are really beautiful and artistic is a good thing.

 

What do you think?

[Guest]

Gosh Craig, great topic. And one I have wrestled with a lot in my mind.

 

I don't know whether subsidized arts would do well in this country because of the culture. For one thing, we don't tend to acknowledge that anything has value unless it's a dollar value. For another, this is still a nation of prudes and most likely state sponsored art would be bland and lacking in any controversy or real meaning.

 

But, public spaces such as buildings and parks are another story. I do think it's partly the government's job to promote aesthetic beauty in our workspaces and shops and the like, because (due to the bottom-line mentality I mentioned above) most businesses don't do it on their own and we see the result: miles of butt ugly strip malls. Europeans laugh their asses off at us for this.

 

Local governments and local private advocacy groups can actually do a lot to change that. City and county ordinances and zoning laws can be passed for example, that ban those huge box warehouses such as Wal-Mart likes to build, or require that new commercial construction meet aesthetic standards that are in keeping with the community. Here in Atlanta a lot is being done to make downtown a more artistic space (with quite a bit of success) and our neighbor Chattanooga, Tennessee is widely heralded for their rebuilding of the downtown area in a really beautiful way. Their renewal project was funded and managed by a combination of local government and a consortium of local businessmen. And of course all of this benefits local artists who participate.

 

So it can be done, and I think it should be done. There is no reason we can't live in beautiful cities like our European friends. But somebody has to make it a priority, and with dozens of Wal-Marts, Home Depots and fast food joints breathing down their necks to "develop" in their communities (not to mention contributing heavily to their campaign funds), most local governments don't. I don't know whether federal involvement is the answer to that. If a community doesn't have enough pride in itself to not want to be ugly, or they prefer rock bottom prices to beauty, what can we say? It's a sad reflection on our culture.

 

--Lee

[BP3]

Clearly, funding for music in American schools is poor at best. The focus of government funding of the arts should be largely in music education. Many studies point to improved math and science skills when music is introduced in to a child's school at an early age. It gives children who might not think that there is a real world use for mathematics, a tangible example of how math can be fun, creative, and enjoyable. Once someone understands that basics of music, teachers have way of gaining students' interest in math, physics, etc........

 

The more children that gain this experience now, the more adults (and may I say - politicians) will understand the importance of music education and be supportive of the politics needed to allow it's proper place in education.

 

[This message has been edited by TinderArts (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Uh Clem]

Lee's right - the gov't would just screw it up - besides they have no money - the taxpayers would subsidize it. More taxes - ugh.

[alphajerk]

i dont think the goverment should fund anything that doesnt have something to do with all of us. like we all need the military [to protect our asses]. we all need roads [to get around]. we all need heathcare [but im not sure i want the government providing that, just look at the UK]. all our children need education [but we need severely better teachers, schools, and cirriculum]. we all need to preserve the parks and little nature left. and there probably be regulations regarding the aesthetics that we build our stores behind [and trailers should be illegal too]

 

schools should have funding for the arts because it builds the right side of childrens brains, are we going to have lopsided kids if they cut arts out.

 

i dont think they should fund individual artists however since the product of art is so subjective. teaching art is different than creating art.

 

creating a beautiful enviroment and protecting nature isnt funding art even though nature is more beautiful in her chaos than man is in his own design.

[Guest]

Although I don't really have a big problem with individual artists getting grants, I would much prefer that more of that money gets spent on programs that can benefit large amounts of people: galleries, community music programs, restoration of theatres, and definitely more money should go to school music and art programs.

 

I'd like to see the private sector do more. There's no reason to settle for crappy looking buildings. Imagine if just a small portion of the money that was sunk into useless meaningless internet startups was spent on beautifying the areas where the investors worked.

 

 

Jonathan

[Guest]

Originally posted by stevepow:

Lee's right - the gov't would just screw it up - besides they have no money - the taxpayers would subsidize it. More taxes - ugh.

 

Well that's just it, Europe has tax rates that Americans would never want to put up with. Not that Europeans want the high taxes either, but they DO have more beautiful public spaces. Seems to me like we could spend some money on that now that everybody is supposedly doing so well in our economy. But all the money just goes to a bigger house and a more expensive car and uh... a home theatre... and a $3000 mic preamp... :-)

 

--Lee

[Guest]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

creating a beautiful enviroment and protecting nature isnt funding art even though nature is more beautiful in her chaos than man is in his own design.

 

There ya go again, trying to define what is and isn't art. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif I agree with you about nature BTW. But I do think making the places where we live beautiful is art. Designing buildings that have beauty and not just utility is art. Ditto for parks, sculptures and fountains, gardens, bike trails and footpaths, etc. There is no reason that the things we come into contact with every day can't be beautiful and involve artistry as well as function. But it seems to be made a low priority by many people who are willing to accept shopping at strip malls and working in gray plastic cubicles and eating at fast food joints.

 

I agree with you too that government only oughta get involved in the things we all need. We all use public spaces like industrial parks and shopping centers and office buildings, so I think it's OK to use government money to make sure they aren't ugly as sin. But it should probably be local money rather than federal and there needs to be cooperation among the businesses involved, I think.

[Anderton]

>>Well that's just it, Europe has tax rates that Americans would never want to put up with. Not that Europeans want the high taxes either, but they DO have more beautiful public spaces. <<

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. On the surface, it looks like Europeans pay higher taxes. But if you factor in the out of pocket cost in the US for things like health insurance (which is covered over there), you get a different picture. Tax rates in the US, if you take into account sales tax, state income tax, property tax, etc. are much higher than just the Federal bite. And some of this is a quality of life issue. Would I be willing to pay more taxes to get services that I want? Maybe...

[Guest]

I agree with you Craig. If I really thought higher taxes would give me better quality of life, I'd pay more in taxes. And yes, most of the things we don't pay for in taxes are paid for in private expenses like health insurance.

 

However, conservative rhetoric has been sufficiently drilled into the heads of Americans that most will not opt to pay higher taxes. Republicans have sufficiently prattled on about "tax and spend liberals" for so long that even a lot of liberals don't like it (never mind that with a Republican in office you can substitute "borrow and spend" for "tax and spend" but that's another can of worms entirely...). And they're not entirely wrong - after all, government wastes a lot of money, and they can't necessarily be trusted to spend it in the right way. If we got rid of the waste in government we could I'm sure make all our cities beautiful WITHOUT increasing taxes. And I think some of the social plans work in Europe because each European country is smaller and more culturally unified than we are. The size of the U.S. federal government is such that it's hard for them to stay accountable.

 

Then again lots of social plans DON'T work in Europe - for example many of the public health clinics in the UK might as well be in Bangla Desh. And gasoline is around $7.00 a gallon there right now, most of it tax.

 

So I think the real answer is to raise people's awareness. If people really want something for their community it'll get done, whether by private or public sponsorship or both (and I think a combination of both is wise). If nobody cares, it won't get done, or it'll get done grudgingly which would not have good results. A lot of people can't even conceive of an urban or suburban landscape that isn't ugly, so they just ignore it and forget about it. If you can fire their imagination with real examples, sometimes people get motivated enough to want to do something.

 

--Lee

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by lflier@mindspring.com (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Tedster]

>So I think the real answer is to raise people's awareness. If people really want something for their community it'll get done, whether by private or public sponsorship or both (and I think a combination of both is wise). If nobody cares, it won't get done, or it'll get done grudgingly which would not have good results. A lot of people can't even conceive of an urban or suburban landscape that isn't ugly, so they just ignore it and forget about it. If you can fire their imagination with real examples, sometimes people get motivated enough to want to do something.<

 

I agree with Lee. It's got to happen on a grassroots level, away from the government coming in and saying "We think your community should look a certain way"...but, I don't think that was entirely the point. Yes, the government should have some money set aside for helping in these areas, but not to be thrown indiscriminately at every furbrain that comes along with a bizarre idea.

 

The whole "school music" thing is interesting. I mean, kids spend years practicing an instrument, only to have the thing go in a closet when they grow up. We need more community bands around...where kids who've graduated high school can play right alongside other adults who haven't picked up their (name a band instrument here) in years. Music isn't just for schoolkids, or those of us who've chosen to whack away at our guitars in the nations clubs 'til our arthritic fingers fall off...music is for everyone who wants to get involved.

[alphajerk]

"""There ya go again, trying to define what is and isn't art"""

 

thats not what i meant. i meant that protecting nature isnt considered part of funding the arts.

 

and frankly i hate those stupid sculptures sitting in parks. most look like hunks of trash. i dont think taxpayers should pay for that. nature if just left alone provides plenty of beauty without spending money on and plopping a hunk of metal on a concrete slab and calling it art.

 

the US government needs massive reorganization and major DOWNSIZING. what do they really do for me? i can see paying for the military but what else??? nothing. they waste MY money on the drug war. they waste MY money on a witch hunt of Clinton. they waste My money on lots and lots of crap. senseless spending and i think its time that we call them on their spending. it has gotten ridiculous. and both of these candidates want to increase the government [regardless of their rhetoric] it just makes me sick.

[Anderton]

>>Then again lots of social plans DON'T work in Europe - for example many of the public health clinics in the UK might as well be in Bangla Desh. <<

 

There is no doubt that Europe has a more socialistic mentality than the US. This is good in some ways -- I had a friend who got critically ill while on tour in Germany, but was afraid to go to the hospital because he didn't have insurance, and couldn't afford a lengthy hospital stay. His German friends were aghast, and tried to explain to him that the medical system didn't work like that -- if you were sick, society was not going to let you die in the streets. (He received excellent care, and recovered totally.)

 

But then it's also clear that piracy and software copying is far worse in Europe than the US. I think this has to do with a socialistic mentality as well -- sort of "the wealth belongs to the people" sort of mindset. And that cuts both ways; that's why the government is willing to fund world-class symphony orchestras. Certainly, if I was living in Europe, I'd be taking my daughter to those concerts and exposing her to incredibly fine music. That's harder to do around here.

 

For many years, another drawback was that government and TV were all government-controlled. Imagine having nothing to look at but two or three variations on PBS, and you'll get an idea of the limitations. Music was often pretty much limited to Top 40 on the pop level, but as a counterbalance, you'd get to hear great American jazz artists who never got any airplay over here.

 

Things are loosening up a bit with regard to the media, and maybe the scene will reach a nice equilibrium between individual freedom and social responsibility...

[Anderton]

One more thing. One of my most vivid memories of going to school in Europe was in 4th grade music class. This consisted of my teacher bringing in some really scratched-up records from her own collection and an equally beat-up record player. She would take something like Wanda Ladowski playing Chopin and put it on. Then the class consisted of us sitting there motionless, with our eyes closed, until the music was over. No commentary, no lectures, no nothing (although if anyone opened their eyes, they were reprimanded). Interestingly, NO one moved during that whole time -- and kids are supposed to have a limited attention span! We all learned to appreciate music in a major way thanks to that once-a-week ritual. I've never seen anything approaching this attitude in the US -- the teacher always has to be DOING something. With my teacher's approach, we didn't just learn to listen, we learned to contemplate. It changed my life.

[Punchmo]

First, based on my travels around the world... European, Asian, Australian and South American cities are beautiful at the "city centre". These central sections are many hundred's and hundred's and hundred's of years old. Don't know but, my conjecture is that taxes had very little to do with their creation and maintenance. Business people built them and business people maintain them now.

 

They are incredibly beautiful sights to experience. However, when you land at their airport and take the shuttle to your hotel, the landscape is no different then an escape from a USA airport via a shuttle ride except for the language on the billboards... Novetel's, Movenpic's,(sp) etc. all look just like Holiday Inns and Ramadas except the food is even worse. For the most part, Hiltons look the same as they do in the USA.

 

The exorbitant taxes paid by these countrymen, particularly by Europeans, is not used to beautify the landscape but instead, to enforce socialism on all, at the expense of the entrepreneur.

 

I have been in the center of some the oldest cities in history and have gagged at the smell coming from sewers, canals, bathrooms in your hotel when the toilet is flushed but, if you do get sick or fall on the sidewalk in (Copenhagen), you will be taken care of.

 

Look at taxes and socialized medicine in Canada, the people with any means go outside the system for serious shit or come to the US.

 

Taxes are very high outside the USA because socialism prevails over capitalism.

 

Look at the Schroeder's Green Party, Socialist coalition in Germany, Socialism in Denmark, UK and Canada. If you are successful there, you become personally responsible (through taxation) for bringing your neighbors, regardless of their efforts, up to a level that in my opinion, breeds laziness from people who "don't get it like you do". That's why successful Europeans come to the USA, for tax relief or, savvy Europeans stay and use imaginative accounting.

 

In the US, we have less taxation, way more money to work with and, very little accountability for its use by our government. We have little control over federally funded programs, how the money is spent and, establishing the criteria for the accountability and ability of our teachers to teach. My best guess that this is a either a union problem or general lack of respect for responsibility. Doesn't matter what kind of job you do, you're in the union and you have a job. How does that relate to audio engineering, the music business and making money? It doesn't! But, maybe we should have an additional, succesful "producer's tax" that helps unsuccessful producers make a living http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif

 

I absolutely agree that music in a curriculum is as important as any other subject...it teaches discipline and foster's respect, not only for beauty but for other people as well. We sure as hell could use a bit more respect for beauty and people!

 

The issue for me on gov't spending on the arts is "who is gonna decide what art is and how the money will be spent?". I fully believe that there are many, many incompetent people in gov't without responsibility and with NO accountability. It's very scary.

 

 

Many people think that, because of mindless spending of public funds by bureaucratic idiots, we should not entrust our taxes to the federal gov't and consequently, have lost the confidence in the feds to do so.

 

So for me, the answer is, more local gov't, less federal gov't. If you want better schools in your home town, do it. If you want shooting ranges in the mountains of Idaho, fine. Where ever you live, if you want music taught to your kids, make it happen. People should be able to live where they want, do what they want (without unreasonable societal disruption) and prosper from their endeavors. I do not want Washington to implement a federal music program for my kids or, for me.

 

We may be forced to listen to digital perfect techno, all the time http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

IMHO http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Restoring teaching the arts? Would music be as important as football?

 

Americans - or I suppose modern members of "society" - are still not intellectually to the point yet where people as a whole understand the value of having a kid learn an instrument. It has value well beyond merely being able to play a melody; the process of translating something non-tactile like sound into a mental process teaches cognitive thinking in a way no other subject will provide. Additionally, for most kids - music will be the first time they really apply their mind to something in depth for the mere sake of doing it. A lot of kids, resistant to "traditional" subjects may never really attain their mental potential because they're never motivated to do so.

 

I've taught guitar for over 15 years now. Kids that have played an instrument from early youth are *always* more aware and articulate, regardless of social/economic background.

 

While it's impressive these days to see kids in 10th grade doing calculus, it's quite telling to see some of the same kids not understand *intuitively* the simple act of pressing a string into a fret, or that you have to turn that knob to make the string change pitch. Kids today are losing common sense skills.

 

At the same time, they're spending more after school time in sports. Almost as much time as they are in school; and parents put a top priority on it. Again - what happened to kids learning to do things on their own? They're never interacting on a social level without being in a regimented faux-social environment... Is it any wonder they're also raping at the age of 8, shooting each other at age 10, blowing up the school at age 14?

 

.. but this concept will be lost on the mainstream, so I suppose this was a pedantically redundant act...

 

Think of the billions of dollars going to "corporate welfare," where huge, highly profitable corporations pay little or no taxes, or have incredible business blunders written off by the taxpayers (Chrysler, the S&L scandal). Okay, so the US taxpayer saved

Chrysler...but they never sent me a thank-you note, with an offer for 50% off my next car purchase. Why not divert some of that pork barrel fat to something that benefits the public?

 

Because our government - under the false pretense that we're running something called a "capitalistic" society - is owned by the corporations. Just like Napster - the bulk of the system has a nature unto itself, and that nature is to serve who provides for the system. It will automatically lean in the direction of protecting corporate interests over our interests. We'll never seen such things you suggest remedied, because it's not in the interest of the people/corporations financing the elections of our officials. It's silly to even think it could be another way.

 

Is it the job of government to attempt to legislate improvements in the quality of life, specifically with the arts? The arts

 

Not improvements directly. Government can't be removed from being a social program. The problem is no one agrees on what the nature of the program is, only the supposed inherent philosophy ("capitalism"). The ultra-whealthy look at government as a burden; the poor a help. That will never change. The question is the *nature* of government: is it to stay out of the way of the rich, or to help the needy? We've only had simplistic cut and dried answers to this - communism and unbridled capitalism - and neither works in modern society.

 

I think it's ridiculous for the government to support arts *programs*, when the reality is that they're supporting the lives of an artist. Stay out of the *subjective* side of things - determining what meets standards, what can qualify for a grant, etc., and provide a subsidy for those who can prove they are leading a limited income artistic career. Or don't at all; in which case, the government should also not subsidize anything else IMO, because in the end it's always going to be a means to support *people*. People working for the tobacco companies in my opinion do not deserve a government handout anymore than a starving artist.

 

Based on what you've said, I hope you're voting independent...

[Guest]

I hate to break it to you but the role of the federal government is not to subsidize art or to create a more pleasing strip mall experience. The federal government's role dictated by the Constitution is to provide interstate commerce regulation, provide a military, conduct foreign relations/trade, and to not intrude upon the rights and obligations of the state. This is a concept that has been lost in the past 65 years. Subsidizing art is a role for the private sector. There is a lot of beutiful art out there but who is my congressman to decide who gets money and who doesn't? Art is a subjective, emotional expression and isn't easily quantified into fiscally sound investments.

We are undeniably becoming a socialist state and it is up to the American people if they want this to occurt. I do not. Art education is important and should be part of the curriculum. If we didn't pay so much federal taxes and kept the money under local control, it would be much easier to institute change.

Everyone wants to have some level social service in their life. No one wants dirty streets or high crime, but should we trade our independence for it?

As Ben Franklin said "He who trades Liberty for Security deserves neither"

 

Reed

[D.Triny]

Originally posted by Tedster:

>

The whole "school music" thing is interesting. I mean, kids spend years practicing an instrument, only to have the thing go in a closet when they grow up. We need more community bands around...where kids who've graduated high school can play right alongside other adults who haven't picked up their (name a band instrument here) in years. Music isn't just for schoolkids, or those of us who've chosen to whack away at our guitars in the nations clubs 'til our arthritic fingers fall off...music is for everyone who wants to get involved.

 

True. I think in the U.S. the balance between music and image has tipped a little too far to the image side. Younger generations are really missing out.

 

Fortunately for me my parents played classical music "loudly" in our house since we were infants, even though I'm more predisposed to Jazz/Latin/R&B these days that early classical exposure really makes me feel balanced. I'm one of the only persons I know that can appreciate Sisqo one minute and Barbra Streisand the next.

 

-david abraham

[zappaqhome.com]

Arts in the schools will not gain their rightful place at the top until social conciousness changes. The vaulue in arts is the overall stimulation of the nervous system and its benefits to the brain. As a piano teacher I often proclaim the piano as the ultimate intelligence tool. I fully believe the stimulation achieved by the refined action of all 10 digits stimulates brain activity and actual cell growth in children. I do not belive government will help in this issue. It must come from the people. There is enough of it to build upon.

[BP3]

I wish to clarify my earlier post. What I recommended is not related to more taxes. With the present level of taxation, we could reduce the amount of waste on grants, etc and rediredt the funding towards music education. The monies would be sent to the local school districts, who would choose the best program for their students.

 

I was able to benefit from a great music program in my youth that has been eliminated from my former school. Many of my classmates are successful players, engineers, produceers,and music journalists.

 

How many of you were helped by music education in school?

[Anderton]

>>We are undeniably becoming a socialist state and it is up to the American people if they want this to occur. I do not. <<

 

Armies can protect us from invasion. No one argues that it is the proper role of government to provide, for example, a police force to ensure our security.

 

But if we have an army and a police force and still are not safe, then we have to look at whether the duty of government to protect its citizens goes beyond traditional roles. For example, the "war on drugs" has failed. Some would argue that drugs are destroying us from the inside faster than any foreign power is destroying us from the outside, and therefore deserves the same kind of priority as an actual invasion. In other words, drugs are a threat to our security, and the job of the government is to deal with threats to our security.

 

Some more socialist states have decided to allow the government to maintain addicts by providing them with drugs, so they don't have to engage in violent acts. The jury's not in on how well this works, but I don't think anyone could say it's a smashing success, and certainly, it works on the symptoms rather than the disease.

 

I'm not arguing for a socialist state. There are some elements of socialism that works for me, there are some elements of laissez-faire capitalism that work for me, and even some aspects of anarchy. But I think it's important to remember that government has not only been perverted in one direction. Think of the billions of dollars in tax reliefs to corporations that don't need it, pork barrel projects, inflated costs of military tools, trade favoritism that totally distorts our economic system...

 

If all that's going to go on, then I say, make sure piano teachers get some of the pie, not just some defense contractor who gets nice tax laws because they know which elected official's campaign to support. When the playing field is truly level, then we can talk about private enterprise providing all support, and cutting the government out altogether. But first, it would be nice if private enterprise stopped being propped up by governmental actions...then they'd know what the rest of the country feels like. If the government is going to subsidize, then spread it around more equitably, or stop subsidizing altogether.

 

Or maybe I'm just depressed because next year, Al Gore or George Bush is going to be president. I'm having a hard time deciding between the sociopath and the moron...

 

Oooops, I'll stick to the topic in the future. Sorry.

[alphajerk]

the lesser of two evils. well i for one am quite nervous about electing bush with seats on the bench coming up in this term. we just got ru486 legalized, i would hate to go back to the dark ages again.

 

of course, then there would be a war on that drug too.

 

drugs are not the problem, illegalization and the judgement of criminal behaviour is the problem. jails are a booming industry in america [i would rather microsoft be a monopoly than state the previous sentence, its really sad, and its mostly drug offenders] and we are paying what $40k a head?

 

ill show you a budget and pay our debt off completely within 3 years.

 

legalize ALL drugs, tax them, free drug offenders and put them in treatment.

 

i think when we pay our taxes, we should be able to CHOOSE where our money goes.

[Guest]

I agree with alphajerk - legalise all drugs - it has worked in Holland and legal heroine has worked in Switzerland- in Australia a recent survey found that 85% of detainees in our prison system are through drug related crime and like the US we are building more and more jails. The guys working on the studio I'm building all sit down after a full days work and have a beer and a joint, by our law and yours they are criminals, pathetic!!

 

In a book I read called the Rise and Fall of Popular Music (sorry can't give the author, but British) it is proposed that the decrease in funding for music in US schools is one of the main causes of the rap music boom where uneducated (musically) kids have found their own musical outlet, but without the music skills.

 

Your thoughts??

 

Cheers

John

[ajcamletearthlink.net]

Wow..so many good points! I honestly believe that the government should be participating in the funding of the *education* of the arts, rather than actual artists themselves. As many of you indicated above, what is and what is not art is purely subjective. When the government becomes a *judge* of who's project is worthy of funding, and who's isn't - trouble starts. However, education is another story. I work as an adjunct percussion instructor in an extremely successful music program in New Jersey, and it doesn't surprise me that almost all the students in the top 10% of the school - are music students. There is a direct correlation. Now, one can argue that the majority of school (public & private) programs need to restructure thier programs to include more contemporary instruments and music, and possibly technology - which i truly believe- but that's for another post. I've have worked as a freelance drummer with a few artists that at some point or another received money from the NEA - when they were doing that. One guy made his whole record that way. I actually didn't feel it was money well spent - but here i am being subjective.

 

The weak link in funding *projects*, IMHO is maintaining some level of quality control over how the $$ is spent *after* it's dolled out. This guy got about $12K for his record - spent roughly $6-7K on the recording, and where the rest went was always a big question mark.....

 

Anyway, my two cents

ajc

[meltingmarshotmail.com]

Too late Craig...

 

Does Bush equal a moron? Let's see. The only reason he got into Yale as an undergraduate was because of the legacy program. They canceled that program, and you will note that none of George's brothers were able to get into Yale. Well George got into Yale and was a C student. After graduating he tried to start an oil company and lost everybody's money, and became an alcoholic. Then at 48 years old is elected govenor of Texas, and now is running for president. It must be a stroke of Genius that you could be such a total loser at the age of 48, and almost be president by 54. Oh OK, maybe he just looked good on the podium, had a good name, and the Republican spin machine has fooled America. Remember, by definition, that 50% of the public has an IQ in double digits. So moron beget moron.

 

Does Al Gore equal sociopath?

This one is a lot harder. Here is a man that most in Congress and the Senate would have stated had very high morals 8 years ago. What has he done to be called a sociopath in the last eight years? Well I guess he didn't turn his back on someone he commited too, even though Clinton totally screwed him politically(hence your sociopath comment). He was involved in a political fund raising quasi-scandal. Aren't they all? Gore looks and talks like a robot, but he is no Michael Meyers. He actually supports the environment, education, and healthcare with dollars, and not hot air. He served the country in the military and then with 24 years of public service. I conclude he is a social misfit with actual good intensions.

 

PS. Just saw a show which interviewed one of the real inventors of ARPANET, and he said "We created a national network, but we didn't create the internet: it was an act of congress that created the internet".

 

I am sure they said this to Gore when he pushed this bill through congress.

 

Dr. dan MD PhD

[Alon]

I believe that Gov. subsidizing of the Arts is an extremely bad idea...

 

First of all, there's no money for this.The extra money would have to come from somewhere?

 

They can't even get the basic things right in this country, so I would think that they need to get the basics sorted out first.

 

I'm not refering to any statistics, but In my opinion ,the education system in this country, has got to be one of the worst in the industrialized world.(Same thing for health care, and a bunch of other things.)

 

I would be surprised if %50 of High School kids could even point out Australia on a map...

 

People think that the USA is the greatest country in the world, but let's face it, many other places have much higher living standards than here.

 

I've lived in Europe for quite a while, and a number of countries there have various programs which subsidize the arts.

 

The reality is that there's a great deal of discrimination going on.

Who is to get the money ? Who Decides ?

In Europe certain countries have hefty blank tape taxes, CD taxes, all of which go to subsidize the "arts".

 

In the places where I've lived, the majority of this money goes to fund classical, jazz and other "obscure" releases, basically stuff that doesn't sell anything.

 

Now I don't have anything against these or any other categories of music, but isn't it ironic that almost all of the money for this fund comes from Pop/Rock sales etc., and almost none of the money goes back into these music forms? That is discrimination to me.

In essence, these governments are saying, "Classical,Jazz music, now that's art, but Rock,Pop and everything else is not an artform."

I don't want any Gov. to define what art is or is not to me. I'm fairly intelligent, and I can make up my own opinions on the matter.

 

I wouldn't trust the US Gov. to subsidize anything really, least of all the arts.

 

It is the parents responsibility, if they decide to introduce their kids to music at an early age.

 

I do believe that there should definitly be some sort of basic music education in all schools, but I don't want the GOV. to subsidize the arts, directly...

 

http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net4/grn_md_wht.gif

 

[This message has been edited by Alon (edited 10-22-2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by Alon (edited 10-22-2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by Alon (edited 10-22-2000).]

[Guest]

Instead of goverment grants, exempt the first $50,000 of income generated by performance or sale.

[rjt]

I work for the VA and a percentage (I can't remember if it was 2 or 5) had to be spent on art. We have some nice photos on every floor and some sculpture outside. So it isn't just Europe who does that.

[alphajerk]

people should fund the arts, not the government. which is what i was trying to get at earlier. the government should ONLY fund what is necessary to EVERYBODY. art isnt. education is, and it should be well rounded. and its not just music they are cutting, in a country of the FATTEST PEOPLE ALIVE, they cut out PE too. they expect kids to sit at their desks all day long now too.

 

and protecting the children isnt either, thats parents jobs, not the governments.

[Anderton]

A comment about government funding from the arts...

 

While in Holland, I commented to a Dutch friend of mine on all the artwork that was seemingly everywhere. He said yes, that you could basically live off the dole and be an artist. His opinion was that the result was artwork produced by bored people.

 

I've held back on stating my views, because I wanted to let the discussion develop a bit. I think government funding of the arts is treating the symptom; restoring arts classes to the schools treats the disease. The comment about rap being the result of people who want to do music but have no formal training is an interesting one. If true, it shows that the human desire to make music will not die. But if directed, it could be taken to a much higher level.

 

Now about the Gore comment. I want to like Gore, but the environmental record of the current administration has not been stellar. I also don't trust the continual re-packaging. Not that there's anything wrong with re-inventing yourself - ask Madonna or Bowie - but it makes me wonder how much he's willing to sell out. If he'd just said early on "screw it, this is who I am, here are my policies, vote for me for the following reasons," I would have been much happier. He has good ideas, but does he have courage?

 

As to which candidate would create better curricula in the schools, I think they both would fail - Bush because he'd lack the imagination to appoint people with imagination, Gore because he'd be too dependent on the establishment people who got us into this mess in the first place. FYI I don't think Nader would do any better.