During the Second World War, Winston Churchill’s finance minister said Britain should cut arts funding to support the war effort. Churchill’s response: “Then what are we fighting for?”
Beats killing innocent people. I'd rather fund a picture of a urinal than a real picture of burnt families the trillion dollar war on windmills. Oh yes! I forgot. 911??? Why no funds for the investigation. Really. I agree with a lot of this. But I really want to ask you. If they were doing Mona Lisas, and The Thinker type of expression would you people do any better. That 13 billion would just go out the window to pay for another paranoid theater of the macabre for the gang and their buddies
The State should not pick winners and losers in the arts. The arts should develop freely. Furthermore, taking people's money to sponsor a form of art they may not support is wrong.
The definition of intellect is: the power or faculty by which one knows as opposed to that which one thinks or feels. The definition of imagination is: that which is not accessible to the sense. So we can know, factually that Warhol was no genius, and so too was not Picasso, and so too were none of them: 20th century "artists". They were, factually, defined "con-artists".
The degradation can also be defined as a regression back to point time zero: the point of a person's birth. And also the elimination of universally applicable empirical self-consciousness: the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through their senses. Then "art" became the pinnacle antihesis of what art should be: To simply paint a picture of some "thing" never "seen" before, show "it" to the "child" mind: which had regressed back to point time zero, and watch them react.
In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci produced the world's first, and only, visual musical equivalent. This is what enabled art to acquire the title of "Art". This visual music contains a mathematical synatx. Experiencing of this synatax requires a developed congnitive capability. A prerequisite to this is a person's ability to congize "space". We can actually see this ability degenerating from 1480 to 1880, with the introduction of Picasso, and the elimination of "intelligence" in and of art.
One BIG reason to fund the arts with tax money -- it actually creates a profit in return and helps pay down the debt! Its also the most accessible way for people living in poverty and despair to stay off the streets by doing something positive and productive as well as build confidence and skills that will help them get out of their miserable situations... as well as rehabilitate people emotionally and mentally.
@TubingWithMyGnomies The govt doesn't magically create resources. The money the govt confiscates and spends on the arts would have been spent more productively by the people whose money it originally was. If people think a form of art is a good thing, they will spend their money on it freely. The arts would thrive without govt handouts because people enjoy the arts, myself included.
Another reason publicly funded art is horrible is the fact that as a self employed artist I am forced through taxation to pay for my competitors work. And on top of it public education, and just art theory in general, teaches that anything can be art if someone names it as such. So my money then goes to things that I don't even consider art, forcing me to support a system of standards I disagree with.
The toilet exhibit is meant to symbolize that it could be a beautiful shape if we were to get rid of our preconceived notion of that shape's function. What about the sacrilegious activities that churches themselves condone, such as the destruction of Pagan or Muslim religious artifacts? Churches frequently disrespect other religions, so they shouldn't be surprised that others criticize their religion. The Catholic Church even sainted subhuman butchers such as Cyril of Alexandria.
Most funding for the arts doesn't go to artists directly but rather for events, exhibitions, and programs. These benefit the general public and employ, teachers, technicians, and various other mainly small businesses that are non-artists. I'm sure like any other government program the guidlines could be revised so money given would be more effectively helping to support the economy at the same time,
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, line 8.
@1ExtraChrispy1 Playing the devils advocate here, but If I was a hardcore liberal I would argue that everything is subjective and I could deem any art as useful and so every art must be funded because every piece of art has a purpose.
@TimeWarp66 This is not a sentiment of mine. Although, I agree with you - the public should not fund art, the Constitution says so and Libertarians should address that the constitution isn't perfect. Then again, this is what separates us from conservatives and Republicans.
@182511419139208 Do you really think Democrats give a fuck what the Constitution says? It's not a literal document according to most of them, it's open to interpretation and they can interpret "promote" as funding.
@pSychOAtDawn I am not sure what you are trying to argue. This line in the constitution is clearly about protecting intellectual property, not building museums, funding art programs or sponsoring concerts in the park.
@nickdrummer2004 You do understand that that particular funding by the federal government is not a lifeline to your recognition, right? Your recognition is your own work - the funding can come from an infinite amount of directions. You should pat yourself on the back rather than the State.
If you can't support yourself with art... Do something else. I support myself and can't afford to pay for you! What part of "Starving Artist" don't you understand!!! You parasite
@trbodav1 Truly. If Sam gave you a cool 100 g's to research plumbing in middle class bungalows and antique valve covers, you and every other cheap ass fool here would be running to file yesterday. Yeh, I agree, but don't tell me you wouldn't take the money.
Nick makes the best point in his last sentence: "do better in working the crowd." What he doesn't say, however, but I believe he knows this, is that the Left/Statist - almost monopolists on such funding - HATE said crowd, Joe & Jane Public. How DARE we proles not appreciate the arts like the elite do?! The elite cannot brainwash us, so they force us - via laws - to relinquish our money to fund their pet schemes. All a ruse, no less, to "educate" we proles!
I am not au fait with how the SMithsonian (0:45) is funded - private, mixed? But I liked Giuliani's comments on how he stood up to a NY gallery/museum about their hosting of "P!ss Christ." If it's privately funded, he explain, it's 100% up to them. But if it's publicly funded, the public earn (pardon the oxymoron) the right to intervene, by way of elected public representatives. Funny, that makes a lot more sense than the curious interpretation of reporters when it happened yrs before...
@JackBlair2 That isnt actually true, Art is a difficult business to break in to. most will go on to take small commissions while working another job, some might move in to theater/ movie props etc, they might be just as tallented as the people in the gallerys, but they dont have the name. but such jobs are limited, theres thousends of amazing sculpters, but they cant all get that 1 job.
@evilyakko I know many artists, some support themselves off of their work completely, some teach, some sell insurance. It is very hard to get a job as an astronaut. I am sure there are many pilots out there who are good enough, but there just aren't that many jobs. Does that mean we should have a national astronauts fund? There are many many jobs that are difficult to have, it is not the responsibility of the rest of society to support those who do not accomplish their goals.
During the Great Depression, the US had somewhat of a cultural renaissance, directly caused by FDR's funding for the arts. As well as creating employment, the public funding installed works of art in municipal buildings. Writers were paid to document a wealth of interviews about living conditions which now are important historical sources. Paid photographers took some of the most striking images of the Great Depression and helped spread awareness of the conditions of some of the poorest.
@CharlieRTH And tax dollars from starving farmers and out of work factory workers paid for those writers, photographers and painters. I am sure those people who were the subjects of the photographs and interviews didn't mind that their children were starving as long as there was a photographer there to document it.
I.m.o, the main issue is that, in an environment of state subsidy, those who choose NOT to apply for funding but rather find ways to innovate and sustain themselves are at a positive disadvantage! The irony is that subsidy is supposed to be an answer to the difficulty of making a living in the arts, but in reality it compounds the problem by punishing those who find ways to do just that! Madness!
I come from the UK. We have a fantastic history of public arts funding. It is one of the things, next to the NHS, that I the most proud of. Hundreds of galleries and museums around the country are free to enter for anyone. Culture to the masses, free at the point of use.
@CharlieRTH Yes we have good galleries, but "free to enter for anyone" should be rephrased to "paid for by tax payers, enjoyed by tourists". What's the big deal in paying to enter anyway? We pay to use the tube and the buses... the only difference is that, whereas public transport is used by the poor, the public art galleries are frequented almost exclusively by the middle class (and tourists).
seeing kevin spaceys face smirking next chris(i get chills up my leg about obama) matthews,makes me want to defund npr ,the national endowment for the arts asap
The vid didn't mention just how PC the NEA Poetry Awards are. Every year for many years every recipient has been black, not because they're any good at poetry.
The "glitterati" tend to hate the free market because voluntary exchanges mean you are most successful if you serve the most people. And people. as you know, are fickle about their choices, including, and perhaps especially, matters of entertainment. Authors, actors, and artists, ad nauseam, would prefer patronage that didn't demand they constantly improvise, or that the masses would prefer "high brow" culture to "trash." It kills the celebutantes to think that THEY must change to satisfy US.
I like the arts but I wait months to get the money owed to me under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. If I owned a few oil wells in Texas, I might get it a little sooner.
As an artist myself, if you cannot make a living by yourself in the FREE MARKET, then perhaps you should try another field. Perhaps everyone around you is too nice to tell you, "your art sucks"!
yeah, well, my tax dollars going to war, death, and destruction surely insult my morals and sensibilities. are the hacks in congress going to cut that? but yet, a few pennies for the arts in comparison to the trillions being pissed away, they cry croc tears about wasteful spending. it's an upsidedown world, the ol' usa!!!
@MojoJuana for what justification should ANY artist be funded by tax payer dollars? Should they not be selling their art to make a living or fund their next endeavor? With this logic, perhaps I should get tax dollars to study the effect of doing nothing! These artists just fail to realize their art sucks and the FREE MARKET refuses to pay their over inflated prices for shit! I'm an artist / designer, the free market pays me very well!
@dijhili and for justification should these useless wars be funded by tax payer dollars? should they not be funded by the free market since the corporations connected to these wars are getting obscenely rich by tax payer dollars exclusively!!! ya see a consumer market out there for useless wars is the point i'm making here!!! i'm not saying my tax dollars should fund certain individual artists, but i see no problems in public funding museums, art education, theaters and concerts...you? whatever!
@MojoJuana The Fed & IRS corrupt crony politicians with power to redistribute, borrow, print (debase) & spend to buy “support” from Special Interest Groups (artists), Unions, “Too Big to Fail” Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street cartel.
Central Banking w/Fiat Debt-Currency & Fractional Reserve Banking gave birth to central economic planning despotism.
Central Banking = Corrupt Political Cronyism
Watch: “Money As Debt” & “Statism's Assembly Line” here on YouTube
@MojoJuana I see you are easily distracted by shiny objects. Stay on topic. Which corporations are you talking about? Funding museums is totally different, that is about preserving relics and historical pieces. Art education? BS, that is dependent on ones perspective. Theaters and concerts......pay for a ticket!
@dijhili ha, and i see ya have ya head up yo ass! which corps? look it up..with the trillions being flushed down the toilets of these wars we have going on a decade and beyond, i'm sure you'll find a shitload of corps on that bread line. i dunno what kinda art museums ya think fit your bill as such, but surely ya can't be that good of an artist as ya claimed from the perspective you're projecting. it shows lack of depth and imagination! bs? i fuckin' pay taxes, too...and it's right on topic!
@dijhili yeah, just because they paid ya for designing ass beads and plugs don't mean ya an artist, like ya know. here's an idea, design an anal plug that resembles yo head if ya didn't already. i'm sure that would sell in certain niche market! i know, and i'm off topic when i strongly feel i rather see the taxes i pay go to support the arts than say...endless wars? ha, better idea! for an extra $10, instead buying an ass plug replica of yo head, ya can rent out yo actual head! how's that?
@MojoJuana By your argument the Federal government should buy me a plasma TV because they spend trillions bombing other countries. You can't use unjust wars as your argument against every tax cut proposed by libertarians. Especially when the Libertarian publication you are responding to opposes those trillions and those wars.
@ryanpmurphy no, by my argument, my government shouldn't spend trillions of our tax dollars to bomb other countries and then turns around and have these criminal hack think tanks tell me that my tax dollars shouldn't go to support positive humanitaritian causes like art!!!
i have no idea which ass ya yanked that plasma tv comparison from...but it's a sure sign of retardation! wars are not cheap! who's going pay for it? cut taxes on the rich to pay for it makes sense to you, numbnuts?
@MojoJuana You are resting your argument about supporting the arts by saying well they waste our money on this over here. So by your logic I can argue the federal government can spend money on anything positive as long as it wastes money. Money spent on the arts and money spent on wars are not related. They are as related as the plasma tv comparison, but apparently that one went right over your head. No one here is arguing we should support the wars.
no, retard, i'm saying money spent on supporting the arts aren't money wasted!!! art enriches the community! it drives up property value! it makes life a bit more interesting! and it surely doesn't spend trillions on killing people!
the real money being wasted here ya retards are not addressing! they wave a shiny pet peeve object like art funding to distract ya retards from the real gorilla of wasteful spending, the 3 wars we have going here, numbnuts!!!
@MojoJuana Ha. Call me retarded once more. Maybe if you say it enough you will look a little more intelligent. It just might cover up all your grammatical and addition errors.
3 wars? Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya. I count five countries we are actively fighting a war in. Since you seem to want to blame all of us for the wars and act as though you are not equally responsible for them. The darling of the Left Obama started the wars in Yemen and Libya.
@MojoJuana Well we can agree on something. Obama and Bush are the same breed, but once again you failed to understand my point. Do you have any arguments besides calling me a retard, or is that where your intellect leaves off, at petty middle-school insults?
i understand where ya head is at...and i say ya wrong. anyway ya slice it, this is one country and one people...a government for the people and by the people is the glue that keeps it together! we have enough resources to address all our domestic needs if we didn't let our rogue government piss it all away on wars is that simple!
@MojoJuana Well, you think I am wrong, but the constitution is on my side. The constitution is the source of the government for the people and by the people.
And congratulations!. There is always some ignorant liberal in these chat rooms to prove not only how flawed their arguments are but to prove just what kind of animal you all are as you fight over the government scraps. I am done with this, I hope the 50 cent hotdog is worth it. ;)
@ryanpmurphy ya idiots yap about the constitution this the constitution that..when ya haven't an inkling of an idea about the constitution at all!!! i wonder how ya feel about them spying on ya saying it's all in the name of protecting ya from the foreign boogie man criminals. where in the constitution it says government representing the people can't fund parks etc? government scraps? looks who's bitching about art funding when the motherlode trillions are being stolen thru banks and wars....ha!
You also cannot separate the funding of individual artists and the funding of public museums, theaters concerts and art education. These are merely the avenues the government uses to support individual artists and their ideas. The public museums purchases art from individuals, The theater purchases screenplays and pays actors, the concerts pay individual musicians and conductors, and art education pays individual artists to teach. It's not about the amount of $ but the way it is used
@ryanpmurphy i say support our artists thru whatever avenues then...i see no problems in the arts. it's all about nurishing the human spirit!!!
when the mayor of a city can take a billion of taxpayers dollars and build a sport stadium and then charge $125 a ticket for a seat way up in the bleachers, who's gettting rich from that deal and who's get the shit end of the stick? same scam with these retarded wars...so, pleeze, tackle the gorillas in the room before ya swat the flies, einstien!
@MojoJuana Some of us can handle holding multiple principles in our heads at the same time. We can argue to end foolish wars while at the same time fight against government waste. And if you actually considered the principles involved you would see the funding of the arts is the same issue as funding baseball fields and sports arenas.
Just because you like art and not sports does not change the principle. It is not a proper roll of government to subsidize our personal pleasure.
@ryanpmurphy and just because ya too retarded to appreciate the arts and don't see any urgency in bitching about paying $125 a ticket to take your family to an old american past time such as baseball and then cough up another c-note for a couple of dogs and drinks after they picked your pocket to pay for the stadium, doesn't mean ya have to whole say on this matter either, retard!!! true, i dig the arts! and i pay taxes, too! ya idea of government is no a government of no sense of community!
@MojoJuana No, I appreciate the arts. I appreciate the arts so much I am willing to pay for it myself, not force my neighbor who may not care about arts to pay for it so I can go to a museum for free. I couldn't care less that it costs $125 for you to take your family to a professional baseball game. There are many levels of competitive baseball that can be viewed for much cheaper. My tax dollars should not be used to build a stadium or a concert hall.
@ryanpmurphy the idea of government, and country for that matter, is to pool our resources to do the things where 1 person can't. i have no problems in building ballparks and concert hall if it benefit the people in that community and not the private corporations making huge profits by selling a 50c hotdog for $7.50 and pocketing the difference. and the owner of that ball team get to make all that profits off of me when he used my money to build that stadium!
@MojoJuana Well your idea of government is to pool resources to do things where one person can't, but that is not the idea of government this country was founded on. The proper roll of government is to protect us from criminals and foreign threats, and settle disputes between individuals. Not to entertain you with a sporting event and sell you a hotdog for 50 cents. It is the subjectivity you are arguing for that permits private corporations to get the government to build them stadiums.
yeah, saying government only has these specific roles is not practical at all...then why public money was used in building things like the jefferson memorial or the maintenance of our national parks?
Artists always have had to foot the bill for there art. It's a field based on talent and training. Which, the training will cost money. Regardless of what road you take. Personally, I would like to see more of the arts funded. Though, its not high on the list. Of things that need to be concentrated on. Fix all of the necessities. Then focus on important things like the Arts. Though, only if there is enough money left to do so.
@lanceknightmare People like you and me should fund the arts privately, by paying to visit galleries, concerts and theaters, not using the government to take money from unwilling taxpayers to support these things. Art galleries should not be free. When you walk in the door you gain a value, as long as it is good art. We have made art so accessible so free, that no one values it anymore. Artists struggle because people think a good portrait should be purchased for $50.
@ryanpmurphy I agree on the admission for artistic gallery's. I've wandered around in Awe for just hours and hours in one of those. My entire experience was completely free. I didn't even see much security there. You know, someone to actually say and I quote. "No touching of the art". In a stern tone.
The last part of your post I'm not in agreement on. Beginning artists sell there art cheap because this is what the free market will allow. My cousin actually owns a small Gallery of his own Art
@lanceknightmare You miss understood the last part of my post. I was not criticizing artists for selling their artwork for cheap, but art patrons who think it should only so much for a good portrait. Artists must rely on their reputation and beginning artists don't have that and so they sell their work for whatever people will pay. So I think we are in agreement on you second point.
If you're just talented and good, you'll never be famous.
You have to become popular, and that's up to luck.
So you make money only if you're popular. Look at Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton ... they're so mediocre, it's sad. But they're making money because they're popular, not because they're good.
So, yes. Leave the arts and go do something else. Do the arts only for the people who will appreciate it - yourself and your friends.
It shouldn't matter if the art is good or not. If it's good, then the artist should make a living from it anyway. Either way, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Funding art just gets into such a mess. You can't fund art without getting into a discussion about what kind of art is appropriate, important, etc. Even if that doesn't lead to outright censorship like the example in this video (and it often does), it lets Big Brother tell you what we should be looking at. As an art student, I hope that for better or for worse, my images don't depend on federal funds. Stop taxing people and they'll have more money to spend on my art in the first place.
I'm an oil painter who has poured heart, "soul," and a small fortune into improving my skills over the past 15 years. I have never, nor will I ever accept stolen (tax) money for any work of art I create. If that means I must have other employment and that art must merely supplement my income, so be it!
Why do people still care about the Catholic League? If they (well ok it's mostly just Donahue) ever go 10 minutes without complaining about something that would be a sign of the Apocalypse.
I repeat what rdrakken commented earlier "Any nation worth its salt spends on the arts." The only reason I was exposed to the arts as a child is because my small Kansas town has a publicly funded art gallery as well as publicly funded adult and children's theaters. Without these publicly funded places my peers and I wouldn't have had any access to the arts. Having art is a result of being a strong nation... seems like people just want to throw the good things we have away.
@yakyakyak69 I can understand someone being upset with what the government spends taxes on, but you seem to think the general idea of taxing people is stealing. Please tell me how your tax free society is going to work?
@yakyakyak69 If you want to go back and live in the 17th century when the document was written, you need to hope for another independence. The rest of us will try to continue proving on the original document.
Redistribution is a form of slavery as those who are FORCED against their will to give money to those who refuse to earn for themselves are, in effect SLAVES.
When progressives-liberals-socialists-statists (whatever) resort to childish name-calling, that means that they KNOW that they have lost the Intellectual Argument.
Temper Tantrum: An emotional outburst that is typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, defiance, angry ranting & sometimes hitting.
@boyinTshirt Taxes do not have to be taken by force. We can fund our government with a voluntary tax system. One type of system would be a tax levied on government protected contracts. If the individuals and/or corporations do not want government protection of their contract they can opt to not pay the tax. This means if the other person or corporation breaks the agreement, the injured party cannot sue the other for damages. There are many other examples and this could be include a sales tax.
@boyinTshirt "Please tell me how your tax free society is going to work?"
In 500 words or less? No way. But if you want to find out, read "Chaos Theory" by Bob Murphy or "Power & Market" by Murray Rothbard. Both are solid reads, but "Power & Market" is probably the more scholarly of the two.
@boyinTshirt Because you grew up in some Podunk town in Kansas, the rest of the country owes you art? You couldn't travel to a larger city that had a gallery? It is the same argument that Obama is using right now to use our money to wire rural areas with high-speed internet cables. I think anyone who argues for more public funding for the arts needs to have a bit more respect for artists. I know many artists who make a living off of their trade, and don't need government to steal money for them.
1. Censorship is not an excuse to stop funding art, its a fundamental right in this nation to protest and demand change...would you cut off funding to EVERYTHING because someone somewhere doesnt like it? yeah...
2. Cant afford it? No. Stop all spending overseas before cutting one thing here, bring military spending in line with sanity and we CAN.
3. Any nation worth its salt spends on the arts, it is part of civilization.
@rdrakken Stealing MY tax money to fund YOUR sense of "art"is simply another form of Redistribution.
Redistribution (individual or corporate), the EVIL child of Hubris & Envy is Pandora's Box, when opened it makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients, TYRANTS of the powerful and CRONIES of the politicians all in the name of "helping" some by enslaving others.
Progressive Big Gov't Statists are Slaves, Slavers and Slave Traders.
@yakyakyak69 It also leads to propaganda. It means that the govt can fund what it thinks is art or what is favourable to it, and refuse funding to anything anti-govt. It helps it's friends and leaves its enemies to fend in an unfair market. It explains why it's so hard for interdependent studios these days. The govt helps out big media corps and everyone else is trying to play in an unfair game. It explains why there's so much artistic shit these days...
When the gov't CAN redistribute it ALWAYS plays favorites to help concentrate power for crony-politicians by using taxpayer money to buy "support" from corrupt "special interest" groups & corporations.
@yakyakyak69 what you're talking about could be applied to any taxation. Taxation equals redistribution no matter how you look at it. What are you really expecting, voluntary taxation? maybe I dont want my tax money funding the war or public schools or roads (dirt is good enough for me!) its unfortunately a part of being a citizen.
Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals (taxpayers) to others (special interests). In this case, it's from taxpayers to Artists, but it could be from taxpayers to corporations in the form of "too big to fail" bailouts, but corporate bailouts can also benefit special interest unions like teachers & uaw at taxpayer expanse.
Roads & defense are used by all. GM vehicles & museums are NOT!
@yakyakyak69 "Roads & defense are used by all" well we all went to school when we were younger too. You've probably been to a museum. Also those road workers bid on the contract and one company gained "special interest over another" to do the work. The Vetern's healthcare isnt used by all. It's redistribution no matter how you slice it, you are trying to make up an imaginary line.
@CetraTJ said: "It's redistribution no matter how you slice it." CORRECT! When this redistribution is at the FEDERAL level, YOU are FORCED to pay for "art" in another state that you will NEVER see and NEVER even know exists!
@rdrakken 1. It is the government money that allows the censorship to occur. Publicly funded art is replacing privately funded art, which tends to skew art into supporting concepts government wants.
2. Just because we spend more money on something else doesn't mean it is not a valid area to cut spending.
3. I don't care what any other nation does, most other nations are corrupt democracies at best that border on mob rule. You are right about it being a part of civ. In fact art existed before gov
@ryanpmurphy There is NO SUCH THING as "government money".
The gov't ONLY has money that was taken BY FORCE from you, your friends and neighbors.
Is it OK for your neighbor to break into your home, take youf wallet and buy aome paintings? Is it OK if he shows those paintings to others and calls that an "art gallery"?
If the mob outside votes for him to do this to you, is it THEN OK?
There are services that we ALL need, and others that only relate to a special "class" of Socialists.
@yakyakyak69 I agree with you completely, I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I was referring directly to rdrakken's comment and ran out of space so I had to make my statement concise. As a photographer and friend of many painters and sculptors I am horrified by what the government considers art and that my representatives think they can spend my money on art of any kind.
@ryanpmurphy 1. CENSORSHIP IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO STOP FUNDING THE ARTS...can you NOT read?
2. BULLSHIT. If we are overspending and cut spending to shit that actually SHOULD be cut...oh, like giving away billions to other nations, wars we never should have started fighting...then we WOULDNT BE over spending in the first place.
3. ***ANY NATION WORTH ITS SALT*** not EVERY OTHER nation...you need to go back to school and learn how to read.
@rdrakken 1. I read fine, You apparently have no ability to understand concepts. My point is in a rational and free society, censorship can only be done by the owner of the art or the property it is on. When everything is funded by government that gives them the right to censor everything. So if you didn't understand what I was saying let me be clear, your whole idea is wrong because the Government should not be censoring art, and the funding is the excuse used to censor.
@rdrakken 2. If you think cutting foreign aid and stopping the wars (both of which I agree with most likely for different reasons) will solve our fiscal problems, you are sorely mistaken. The real reason however that the government should not be funding art is that when you fund one artist, you are taking money away from other artists to pay their competitor. Like any bailout, handout, or work program you hurt one person to benefit another.
@rdrakken "Any nation worth its salt" implies a comparison with every other nation past and present. We don't need the gov. to fund art, artists do much better on their own. You need to go back to school to learn concept formation. And by the way when you want to quote something you put it in quotes. Oh yeah and CAPITALIZING EVERY LETTER, just makes you look like an idiot who doesn't know how to use language to properly accent the part of the sentence to be accented.
"Worth its salt" ~ To be competent, reasonably skilled.
"Any" one, some or all
"nation" community of people.
"one, some or all, communities of people,thats competent or reasonably skilled"
Yeah, thats someone comparing nations...Go back to fucking school and for the sake of the nation, dont VOTE again until you get a clue...you are just another in a long line of public school faliures.
@rdrakken Settle down there. I am wondering why you are incapable of having an adult conversation without swearing and ridicule. You are spouting the most incoherent dribble in that last comment, there is nothing there even worth considering. Are you a child? Or maybe you just need to lay off the sauce.
@ryanpmurphy awe, someone gave a comment that made you look like a complete fool and now you have to resort to the "OMG you used adult words and are offensive" reply.
Just stop posting already, you are an intellectual lightweight and your grasp of the language is weak at best. You tried to be a smart ass and through my entire post out and targeted a small portion of it backfired on you. Deal with it.
@rdrakken Made me look like a fool? Ha!! That one is rich. You haven't made a valid argument the entire time. Which I guess is why you are so sore, you have no arguments you can only resort to name calling. I am done talking with you, because I can see now debating you is like administering medicine to the dead.
@ryanpmurphy please, post again with no direct comment pertaining to the bulk of your argument which has been throughly refuted. It truly adds to your overwhelming air of idiocy along with your "I am done with you" comment while taking the time to still reply as if you trying to prove to people you are supieror.
You have been refuted, you have no answer....yet for some reason you still reply, I dont think the word moron can be defined in a better way as you have managed with your last post.
The same can be said for public funding of schools, transit and every other activity that involves robbing one group to fund the desires of another. Taxation is theft...no way around that.
Frankly there are few areas that the Federal Gov't needs to provide funds for and the Arts isn't one of the two, period. The rest could go away and our over extending Federal Gov't would be back behind the confines of the Constitution where it belongs.
All the reasons cited are valid. Two and a half years of financial mismanagement has left the country bankrupt. Public money for the arts has to go. If an individual wants to donate that is up to him. I for one am not willing to give money to someone to piss in a jar, drop a crucafix in it, and call it art. That is anti-christian expression, not art.
In a Reason TV utopia the only art that would be funded would be advertising. I don't believe "profit" is now or should be the sole motivator for a society's betterment. Not every issue (economic, social, etc.) can be solved using economic theory. Application of such thought is just as cultist as the alternatives.
@KyleOutrage So in your view of the world, nobody buys art because they enjoy it? Just because someone defecates in a tin can and calls it art doesn't mean the rest of society should be forced to recognize it as such. The whole idea of the profit motive is that people are only rewarded for doing things that others view as worthy of reward. If someone wants to pay €124,000 for the privilege of owning a can of Piero Manzoni shit (been eating corn, eh?), that's their problem.
And to not make myself look like a hypocrite, I would like to point out how stupid it is that the government funds film-making. With Hollywood and the always constant interest in independent film, not to mention the massive word-of-mouth and free promotion that the internet provides, what excuse does anyone have to support such a thing? A good deal of movies and music were found out by my use of the internet and many were not promo materials paid by the music artists and filmmakers.
Can we please have ONE libertarian-leaning video, especially from Reason.TV that doesn't have some commenter blurting out a slogan for Ron Paul and not saying anything about the video or the subject AT ALL?! There are many reasons to support Ron Paul, but it makes me think that many of his fans aren't that much less zombie-like than the ObamaZombies we saw back in 2008.
@danielinraleigh Why do you care? People can say what they want. And perhaps people who don't know about Ron Paul will come across videos like these and realize from the comments that Ron Paul is the only realistic libertarian presidential candidate we have and vote for him. And I bet if you ask just about any Ron Paul supporter difficult questions, they'll be able to give you a good answer.
@Bristecom I care because to me it makes Libertarians look like mindless sheep with a touch of leader-worship, which I know is not the case, but I fear that impression will be given. Also, I find it hard to believe any Libertarian hasn't at least heard of Ron Paul by now. Many Paul supporters are intelligent individuals who think for themselves. These posters, however, make it look like it's not true, and that their thoughts on politics and who they vote for are no deeper than a bumper sticker.
@danielinraleigh At least they're showing their passion. I think constant reminders are important although I do agree just saying his name isn't the most effective method. But realistically ATM Ron Paul is (our) best and perhaps only chance at reversing this crash course... The problem is that explaining why people should vote him in as president takes a lot of time and an intelligent individual to understand. It's not as simple as, "He gonna gib us free health cares and everythang!" :P
I should say, it's not even that I think the free market will ultimately reward true artists with a net-worth equal to their genius. Rather, the very thing that makes art endearing is that the artist forgoes these riches in order to make a statement. There are, obviously, personal rewards beyond money or else they wouldn't do it. But it's ironic that free-marketers are the ones accused of only caring about money when everytime I turn around it's the statists bitching about how little they make.
I so agree with what is said in this video. National Endowment Arts ok i have no problem with this organization existing , just not with tax payers dollars.
@MrTrueMedia - You're so indoctrinated you're actually stupid. For those of you who want to see the stupidity of Leftist indoctrination on display I'll repeat what this Libtarded dipshit just said:
"@arcanekrusader what exactly is a "honest living"? earning without lying? that's impossible in capitalism."
That is UNBELIEVABLY stupid! It goes well beyond stupid to the point of Useful Idiot. A stupid person can understand that you could live off the land, without taxes, prosper, and never steal.
1. While this is true, it is not a good reason to not fund something. Yes, not all art will get funding and provocative art will rarely get funding, but that does not mean you shouldn't fund any art.
2. This is a good reason, but then you could argue that we should cut all programs by XX percent, which cuts arts and military.
3. What is "necessary", is the government as a whole truly "necessary"? The idea of what is or is not necessary when it comes to funding is subjective at best.
@Loathomar The founding fathers knew what was necessary and what was not. The constitution clearly grants powers to maintain a military but no power to support "the arts". Currently all federal departments should be reduced, but all unconstitutional departments should be eliminated. In general, the government should not exist anywhere the private market cannot provide a particular need. Art, however it is defined, does fine on its own and even if it doesn't, it is hardly a necessity.
@kev3d We have a outdoor festival in my city where local artists gather every year to sell pottery, paintings, blown glass, sculptures, etc. There is no lack of buyers - I myself make multiple purchases there every year.
Somehow, though, I think you'd be hard-pressed to peddle off a bottle of your own piss in such a venue.
Hence the NEA: a welfare program specifically for "artists" who would be otherwise unable to find a market for their products owing to the kind of crap they like to produce.
the only way to get anything done on washington is to create a very large and powerful lobby to bribe politicians. i believe that's called racketeering.
I´m a libertarian... But I sympathize with arts and cultural funding. Should be on a state level NOT federal if anything and everyone is right in saying it´s dangerous that government funds it because it could easily be turned into propoganda, However, if art was purely market based, all we´d have is more celebrity apprentices and Paris Hilton reality shows. No more symphony orchestras, operas, ballets or small theater. If thet get rid of the income tax, then I´ll push for no arts funding.
@NLMF2011 There still exists a market for symphony orchestras and theatre. The popularity of Paris Hilton et al is a symptom of a culture of vapidity which is being aggressively promoted by organizations like the NEA and Department of Education, and the reason is obvious: An easily distracted population is an easily manipulated one.
Remember the girl who said she voted for Obama because she saw him dancing on Ellen? We get what we get for turning our electoral process into a reality TV show.
Here's my take. Im not an artist (at least not a good one) I am a small business owner. My company and I provide a needed service in the community in which I live. Some times business is good sometimes not so good so I budget my funds accordingly, advertise and work smart so that my going concern can keep going. Why are we, through our taxes subsidizing art? Hey if it's good art people will buy it, if not, well don't look at me, I have my own business to run and nobody is writing me checks.
During the Second World War, Winston Churchill’s finance minister said Britain should cut arts funding to support the war effort. Churchill’s response: “Then what are we fighting for?”
mraindog81 3 months ago
Beats killing innocent people. I'd rather fund a picture of a urinal than a real picture of burnt families the trillion dollar war on windmills. Oh yes! I forgot. 911??? Why no funds for the investigation. Really. I agree with a lot of this. But I really want to ask you. If they were doing Mona Lisas, and The Thinker type of expression would you people do any better. That 13 billion would just go out the window to pay for another paranoid theater of the macabre for the gang and their buddies
distressed7 5 months ago
Starve an artist, today, until all are starving or earning their keep.
TruthAxe 7 months ago
Spacey is a space cadet.
Reason rocks.
healthhavencom 7 months ago
The State should not pick winners and losers in the arts. The arts should develop freely. Furthermore, taking people's money to sponsor a form of art they may not support is wrong.
ViewpointLibertarian 8 months ago 4
The definition of intellect is: the power or faculty by which one knows as opposed to that which one thinks or feels. The definition of imagination is: that which is not accessible to the sense. So we can know, factually that Warhol was no genius, and so too was not Picasso, and so too were none of them: 20th century "artists". They were, factually, defined "con-artists".
MrMikeludo 8 months ago
The degradation can also be defined as a regression back to point time zero: the point of a person's birth. And also the elimination of universally applicable empirical self-consciousness: the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through their senses. Then "art" became the pinnacle antihesis of what art should be: To simply paint a picture of some "thing" never "seen" before, show "it" to the "child" mind: which had regressed back to point time zero, and watch them react.
MrMikeludo 8 months ago
In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci produced the world's first, and only, visual musical equivalent. This is what enabled art to acquire the title of "Art". This visual music contains a mathematical synatx. Experiencing of this synatax requires a developed congnitive capability. A prerequisite to this is a person's ability to congize "space". We can actually see this ability degenerating from 1480 to 1880, with the introduction of Picasso, and the elimination of "intelligence" in and of art.
MrMikeludo 8 months ago
One BIG reason to fund the arts with tax money -- it actually creates a profit in return and helps pay down the debt! Its also the most accessible way for people living in poverty and despair to stay off the streets by doing something positive and productive as well as build confidence and skills that will help them get out of their miserable situations... as well as rehabilitate people emotionally and mentally.
TubingWithMyGnomies 8 months ago
@TubingWithMyGnomies The govt doesn't magically create resources. The money the govt confiscates and spends on the arts would have been spent more productively by the people whose money it originally was. If people think a form of art is a good thing, they will spend their money on it freely. The arts would thrive without govt handouts because people enjoy the arts, myself included.
ViewpointLibertarian 8 months ago 5
@TubingWithMyGnomies hmmm,you can do all that without tax payer money.we're BROKE, what part of that don't you understand ?
hayden50 7 months ago
Another reason publicly funded art is horrible is the fact that as a self employed artist I am forced through taxation to pay for my competitors work. And on top of it public education, and just art theory in general, teaches that anything can be art if someone names it as such. So my money then goes to things that I don't even consider art, forcing me to support a system of standards I disagree with.
biggj41 8 months ago 2
The toilet exhibit is meant to symbolize that it could be a beautiful shape if we were to get rid of our preconceived notion of that shape's function. What about the sacrilegious activities that churches themselves condone, such as the destruction of Pagan or Muslim religious artifacts? Churches frequently disrespect other religions, so they shouldn't be surprised that others criticize their religion. The Catholic Church even sainted subhuman butchers such as Cyril of Alexandria.
jaymthegenius 8 months ago
If you can't make a living producing it, it ain't art.
pookatim 8 months ago
Most funding for the arts doesn't go to artists directly but rather for events, exhibitions, and programs. These benefit the general public and employ, teachers, technicians, and various other mainly small businesses that are non-artists. I'm sure like any other government program the guidlines could be revised so money given would be more effectively helping to support the economy at the same time,
jdbohdan 8 months ago
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, line 8.
Problem, constitutionalists?
pSychOAtDawn 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn Ummm, Yeah. "Useful Arts". Not "art". Useful arts, like blacksmithing, upholstery, coopers, wheel-wrights...
Oh, and it's the PROMOTION OF that's key in that paragraph.
1ExtraChrispy1 9 months ago
@1ExtraChrispy1 Playing the devils advocate here, but If I was a hardcore liberal I would argue that everything is subjective and I could deem any art as useful and so every art must be funded because every piece of art has a purpose.
pSychOAtDawn 8 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
Than pay for it out of your pocket, not out of mine! It clearly is not a function of government to fund art!
TimeWarp66 8 months ago
@TimeWarp66 This is not a sentiment of mine. Although, I agree with you - the public should not fund art, the Constitution says so and Libertarians should address that the constitution isn't perfect. Then again, this is what separates us from conservatives and Republicans.
pSychOAtDawn 8 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn copy rites and trademarks does not mean funding
problem, dumbass?
182511419139208 9 months ago
@182511419139208 Do you really think Democrats give a fuck what the Constitution says? It's not a literal document according to most of them, it's open to interpretation and they can interpret "promote" as funding.
pSychOAtDawn 8 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn I am not sure what you are trying to argue. This line in the constitution is clearly about protecting intellectual property, not building museums, funding art programs or sponsoring concerts in the park.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn Never mind my last comment, I read your others and I see what you were doing.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
i have used government funding to make a short film at my university
it helped me get recognized and i am on my way to bigger and paying jobs
it can work...
nickdrummer2004 9 months ago
@nickdrummer2004 You do understand that that particular funding by the federal government is not a lifeline to your recognition, right? Your recognition is your own work - the funding can come from an infinite amount of directions. You should pat yourself on the back rather than the State.
Audiofalcon7 9 months ago
Well other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
PEinHK 9 months ago
If you can't support yourself with art... Do something else. I support myself and can't afford to pay for you! What part of "Starving Artist" don't you understand!!! You parasite
trbodav1 9 months ago 12
@trbodav1 Truly. If Sam gave you a cool 100 g's to research plumbing in middle class bungalows and antique valve covers, you and every other cheap ass fool here would be running to file yesterday. Yeh, I agree, but don't tell me you wouldn't take the money.
distressed7 5 months ago
Nick makes the best point in his last sentence: "do better in working the crowd." What he doesn't say, however, but I believe he knows this, is that the Left/Statist - almost monopolists on such funding - HATE said crowd, Joe & Jane Public. How DARE we proles not appreciate the arts like the elite do?! The elite cannot brainwash us, so they force us - via laws - to relinquish our money to fund their pet schemes. All a ruse, no less, to "educate" we proles!
THAT is my main concern.
darrensilverman73 9 months ago 7
I am not au fait with how the SMithsonian (0:45) is funded - private, mixed? But I liked Giuliani's comments on how he stood up to a NY gallery/museum about their hosting of "P!ss Christ." If it's privately funded, he explain, it's 100% up to them. But if it's publicly funded, the public earn (pardon the oxymoron) the right to intervene, by way of elected public representatives. Funny, that makes a lot more sense than the curious interpretation of reporters when it happened yrs before...
darrensilverman73 9 months ago
If you need funding for your "art," then you suck as an artist.
JackBlair2 9 months ago
@JackBlair2 That isnt actually true, Art is a difficult business to break in to. most will go on to take small commissions while working another job, some might move in to theater/ movie props etc, they might be just as tallented as the people in the gallerys, but they dont have the name. but such jobs are limited, theres thousends of amazing sculpters, but they cant all get that 1 job.
evilyakko 9 months ago
@evilyakko I know many artists, some support themselves off of their work completely, some teach, some sell insurance. It is very hard to get a job as an astronaut. I am sure there are many pilots out there who are good enough, but there just aren't that many jobs. Does that mean we should have a national astronauts fund? There are many many jobs that are difficult to have, it is not the responsibility of the rest of society to support those who do not accomplish their goals.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
During the Great Depression, the US had somewhat of a cultural renaissance, directly caused by FDR's funding for the arts. As well as creating employment, the public funding installed works of art in municipal buildings. Writers were paid to document a wealth of interviews about living conditions which now are important historical sources. Paid photographers took some of the most striking images of the Great Depression and helped spread awareness of the conditions of some of the poorest.
CharlieRTH 9 months ago
@CharlieRTH And tax dollars from starving farmers and out of work factory workers paid for those writers, photographers and painters. I am sure those people who were the subjects of the photographs and interviews didn't mind that their children were starving as long as there was a photographer there to document it.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
I.m.o, the main issue is that, in an environment of state subsidy, those who choose NOT to apply for funding but rather find ways to innovate and sustain themselves are at a positive disadvantage! The irony is that subsidy is supposed to be an answer to the difficulty of making a living in the arts, but in reality it compounds the problem by punishing those who find ways to do just that! Madness!
JohnColt 9 months ago
I come from the UK. We have a fantastic history of public arts funding. It is one of the things, next to the NHS, that I the most proud of. Hundreds of galleries and museums around the country are free to enter for anyone. Culture to the masses, free at the point of use.
CharlieRTH 9 months ago
@CharlieRTH Yes we have good galleries, but "free to enter for anyone" should be rephrased to "paid for by tax payers, enjoyed by tourists". What's the big deal in paying to enter anyway? We pay to use the tube and the buses... the only difference is that, whereas public transport is used by the poor, the public art galleries are frequented almost exclusively by the middle class (and tourists).
JohnColt 9 months ago
seeing kevin spaceys face smirking next chris(i get chills up my leg about obama) matthews,makes me want to defund npr ,the national endowment for the arts asap
100crawma 9 months ago
I hate this. It pisses me off everyday.
cory2146 9 months ago
Nick Gillespie pissed off at least 20 mimes.
Watch yer back, buddy. Those bastards are sneaky.
Amy31415 9 months ago 2
The vid didn't mention just how PC the NEA Poetry Awards are. Every year for many years every recipient has been black, not because they're any good at poetry.
AZstarwatcher 9 months ago
The "glitterati" tend to hate the free market because voluntary exchanges mean you are most successful if you serve the most people. And people. as you know, are fickle about their choices, including, and perhaps especially, matters of entertainment. Authors, actors, and artists, ad nauseam, would prefer patronage that didn't demand they constantly improvise, or that the masses would prefer "high brow" culture to "trash." It kills the celebutantes to think that THEY must change to satisfy US.
totustuus11 9 months ago
They don't do Dr Who reruns on PBS anymore.Therefore I don't watch PBS anymore.
horrorshow71 9 months ago
I like the arts but I wait months to get the money owed to me under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. If I owned a few oil wells in Texas, I might get it a little sooner.
mikooou 9 months ago
@mikooou If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
mutabrev 9 months ago
@mutabrev I'm not sure what you're getting at?
mikooou 9 months ago
It's always funny to see actors put in their 2 cents when they are renowned for being politically and economically retarded.
dijhili 9 months ago 2
As an artist myself, if you cannot make a living by yourself in the FREE MARKET, then perhaps you should try another field. Perhaps everyone around you is too nice to tell you, "your art sucks"!
dijhili 9 months ago 46
@dijhili exactly
100crawma 9 months ago
@dijhili Basically, if you can't make a living, it probably means your art sucks.
AshillaBeige 9 months ago
@dijhili best comment!
TheSouthpaw1993 9 months ago
DEFUND NEA NOW!!!!
Hellpig 9 months ago
yeah, well, my tax dollars going to war, death, and destruction surely insult my morals and sensibilities. are the hacks in congress going to cut that? but yet, a few pennies for the arts in comparison to the trillions being pissed away, they cry croc tears about wasteful spending. it's an upsidedown world, the ol' usa!!!
MojoJuana 9 months ago
@MojoJuana for what justification should ANY artist be funded by tax payer dollars? Should they not be selling their art to make a living or fund their next endeavor? With this logic, perhaps I should get tax dollars to study the effect of doing nothing! These artists just fail to realize their art sucks and the FREE MARKET refuses to pay their over inflated prices for shit! I'm an artist / designer, the free market pays me very well!
dijhili 9 months ago
@dijhili and for justification should these useless wars be funded by tax payer dollars? should they not be funded by the free market since the corporations connected to these wars are getting obscenely rich by tax payer dollars exclusively!!! ya see a consumer market out there for useless wars is the point i'm making here!!! i'm not saying my tax dollars should fund certain individual artists, but i see no problems in public funding museums, art education, theaters and concerts...you? whatever!
MojoJuana 9 months ago
@MojoJuana The Fed & IRS corrupt crony politicians with power to redistribute, borrow, print (debase) & spend to buy “support” from Special Interest Groups (artists), Unions, “Too Big to Fail” Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street cartel.
Central Banking w/Fiat Debt-Currency & Fractional Reserve Banking gave birth to central economic planning despotism.
Central Banking = Corrupt Political Cronyism
Watch: “Money As Debt” & “Statism's Assembly Line” here on YouTube
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 yep! ya know da dealio!
MojoJuana 9 months ago
@MojoJuana I see you are easily distracted by shiny objects. Stay on topic. Which corporations are you talking about? Funding museums is totally different, that is about preserving relics and historical pieces. Art education? BS, that is dependent on ones perspective. Theaters and concerts......pay for a ticket!
dijhili 9 months ago
@dijhili ha, and i see ya have ya head up yo ass! which corps? look it up..with the trillions being flushed down the toilets of these wars we have going on a decade and beyond, i'm sure you'll find a shitload of corps on that bread line. i dunno what kinda art museums ya think fit your bill as such, but surely ya can't be that good of an artist as ya claimed from the perspective you're projecting. it shows lack of depth and imagination! bs? i fuckin' pay taxes, too...and it's right on topic!
MojoJuana 9 months ago
@MojoJuana it's not on topic. That is like mocking this president for his lack of economic understanding yet still pointing at Bush!
So because I make a very good living as a designer ( 3d ) my art sucks because I don't think artists should be funded? That makes sense! LOL
Go smoke some more child.
dijhili 9 months ago
@dijhili yeah, just because they paid ya for designing ass beads and plugs don't mean ya an artist, like ya know. here's an idea, design an anal plug that resembles yo head if ya didn't already. i'm sure that would sell in certain niche market! i know, and i'm off topic when i strongly feel i rather see the taxes i pay go to support the arts than say...endless wars? ha, better idea! for an extra $10, instead buying an ass plug replica of yo head, ya can rent out yo actual head! how's that?
MojoJuana 9 months ago
@MojoJuana By your argument the Federal government should buy me a plasma TV because they spend trillions bombing other countries. You can't use unjust wars as your argument against every tax cut proposed by libertarians. Especially when the Libertarian publication you are responding to opposes those trillions and those wars.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy no, by my argument, my government shouldn't spend trillions of our tax dollars to bomb other countries and then turns around and have these criminal hack think tanks tell me that my tax dollars shouldn't go to support positive humanitaritian causes like art!!!
i have no idea which ass ya yanked that plasma tv comparison from...but it's a sure sign of retardation! wars are not cheap! who's going pay for it? cut taxes on the rich to pay for it makes sense to you, numbnuts?
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana You are resting your argument about supporting the arts by saying well they waste our money on this over here. So by your logic I can argue the federal government can spend money on anything positive as long as it wastes money. Money spent on the arts and money spent on wars are not related. They are as related as the plasma tv comparison, but apparently that one went right over your head. No one here is arguing we should support the wars.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy
no, retard, i'm saying money spent on supporting the arts aren't money wasted!!! art enriches the community! it drives up property value! it makes life a bit more interesting! and it surely doesn't spend trillions on killing people!
the real money being wasted here ya retards are not addressing! they wave a shiny pet peeve object like art funding to distract ya retards from the real gorilla of wasteful spending, the 3 wars we have going here, numbnuts!!!
wakie wakie!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana Ha. Call me retarded once more. Maybe if you say it enough you will look a little more intelligent. It just might cover up all your grammatical and addition errors.
3 wars? Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya. I count five countries we are actively fighting a war in. Since you seem to want to blame all of us for the wars and act as though you are not equally responsible for them. The darling of the Left Obama started the wars in Yemen and Libya.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy
haha!
just because ya kinda can spell 'grammatical' and can actually count up to 5 don't make ya no genius like ya know ya know, retard!!!
obama's 1st term might as well be dick and bush's 3rd term....and if ya can't see that, ya not paying attention at all!
wakie wakie!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana Well we can agree on something. Obama and Bush are the same breed, but once again you failed to understand my point. Do you have any arguments besides calling me a retard, or is that where your intellect leaves off, at petty middle-school insults?
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy
i understand where ya head is at...and i say ya wrong. anyway ya slice it, this is one country and one people...a government for the people and by the people is the glue that keeps it together! we have enough resources to address all our domestic needs if we didn't let our rogue government piss it all away on wars is that simple!
okay?
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana Well, you think I am wrong, but the constitution is on my side. The constitution is the source of the government for the people and by the people.
And congratulations!. There is always some ignorant liberal in these chat rooms to prove not only how flawed their arguments are but to prove just what kind of animal you all are as you fight over the government scraps. I am done with this, I hope the 50 cent hotdog is worth it. ;)
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy ya idiots yap about the constitution this the constitution that..when ya haven't an inkling of an idea about the constitution at all!!! i wonder how ya feel about them spying on ya saying it's all in the name of protecting ya from the foreign boogie man criminals. where in the constitution it says government representing the people can't fund parks etc? government scraps? looks who's bitching about art funding when the motherlode trillions are being stolen thru banks and wars....ha!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana
You also cannot separate the funding of individual artists and the funding of public museums, theaters concerts and art education. These are merely the avenues the government uses to support individual artists and their ideas. The public museums purchases art from individuals, The theater purchases screenplays and pays actors, the concerts pay individual musicians and conductors, and art education pays individual artists to teach. It's not about the amount of $ but the way it is used
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy i say support our artists thru whatever avenues then...i see no problems in the arts. it's all about nurishing the human spirit!!!
when the mayor of a city can take a billion of taxpayers dollars and build a sport stadium and then charge $125 a ticket for a seat way up in the bleachers, who's gettting rich from that deal and who's get the shit end of the stick? same scam with these retarded wars...so, pleeze, tackle the gorillas in the room before ya swat the flies, einstien!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana Some of us can handle holding multiple principles in our heads at the same time. We can argue to end foolish wars while at the same time fight against government waste. And if you actually considered the principles involved you would see the funding of the arts is the same issue as funding baseball fields and sports arenas.
Just because you like art and not sports does not change the principle. It is not a proper roll of government to subsidize our personal pleasure.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy and just because ya too retarded to appreciate the arts and don't see any urgency in bitching about paying $125 a ticket to take your family to an old american past time such as baseball and then cough up another c-note for a couple of dogs and drinks after they picked your pocket to pay for the stadium, doesn't mean ya have to whole say on this matter either, retard!!! true, i dig the arts! and i pay taxes, too! ya idea of government is no a government of no sense of community!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana No, I appreciate the arts. I appreciate the arts so much I am willing to pay for it myself, not force my neighbor who may not care about arts to pay for it so I can go to a museum for free. I couldn't care less that it costs $125 for you to take your family to a professional baseball game. There are many levels of competitive baseball that can be viewed for much cheaper. My tax dollars should not be used to build a stadium or a concert hall.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy the idea of government, and country for that matter, is to pool our resources to do the things where 1 person can't. i have no problems in building ballparks and concert hall if it benefit the people in that community and not the private corporations making huge profits by selling a 50c hotdog for $7.50 and pocketing the difference. and the owner of that ball team get to make all that profits off of me when he used my money to build that stadium!
it's all that simple!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana Well your idea of government is to pool resources to do things where one person can't, but that is not the idea of government this country was founded on. The proper roll of government is to protect us from criminals and foreign threats, and settle disputes between individuals. Not to entertain you with a sporting event and sell you a hotdog for 50 cents. It is the subjectivity you are arguing for that permits private corporations to get the government to build them stadiums.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy
yeah, saying government only has these specific roles is not practical at all...then why public money was used in building things like the jefferson memorial or the maintenance of our national parks?
government and people should be one and the same!
MojoJuana 8 months ago
@MojoJuana I also want to apologize, I was wrong, calling me retarded again just makes you look more stupid.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetard! ;)
MojoJuana 8 months ago
Artists always have had to foot the bill for there art. It's a field based on talent and training. Which, the training will cost money. Regardless of what road you take. Personally, I would like to see more of the arts funded. Though, its not high on the list. Of things that need to be concentrated on. Fix all of the necessities. Then focus on important things like the Arts. Though, only if there is enough money left to do so.
lanceknightmare 9 months ago
@lanceknightmare People like you and me should fund the arts privately, by paying to visit galleries, concerts and theaters, not using the government to take money from unwilling taxpayers to support these things. Art galleries should not be free. When you walk in the door you gain a value, as long as it is good art. We have made art so accessible so free, that no one values it anymore. Artists struggle because people think a good portrait should be purchased for $50.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy I agree on the admission for artistic gallery's. I've wandered around in Awe for just hours and hours in one of those. My entire experience was completely free. I didn't even see much security there. You know, someone to actually say and I quote. "No touching of the art". In a stern tone.
The last part of your post I'm not in agreement on. Beginning artists sell there art cheap because this is what the free market will allow. My cousin actually owns a small Gallery of his own Art
lanceknightmare 8 months ago
@lanceknightmare You miss understood the last part of my post. I was not criticizing artists for selling their artwork for cheap, but art patrons who think it should only so much for a good portrait. Artists must rely on their reputation and beginning artists don't have that and so they sell their work for whatever people will pay. So I think we are in agreement on you second point.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
If you're just talented and good, you'll never be famous.
You have to become popular, and that's up to luck.
So you make money only if you're popular. Look at Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton ... they're so mediocre, it's sad. But they're making money because they're popular, not because they're good.
So, yes. Leave the arts and go do something else. Do the arts only for the people who will appreciate it - yourself and your friends.
Herundras 9 months ago
It shouldn't matter if the art is good or not. If it's good, then the artist should make a living from it anyway. Either way, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Jotto999 9 months ago
Funding art just gets into such a mess. You can't fund art without getting into a discussion about what kind of art is appropriate, important, etc. Even if that doesn't lead to outright censorship like the example in this video (and it often does), it lets Big Brother tell you what we should be looking at. As an art student, I hope that for better or for worse, my images don't depend on federal funds. Stop taxing people and they'll have more money to spend on my art in the first place.
Nokhoida 9 months ago
I'm an oil painter who has poured heart, "soul," and a small fortune into improving my skills over the past 15 years. I have never, nor will I ever accept stolen (tax) money for any work of art I create. If that means I must have other employment and that art must merely supplement my income, so be it!
bradwatson7324 9 months ago
Why do people still care about the Catholic League? If they (well ok it's mostly just Donahue) ever go 10 minutes without complaining about something that would be a sign of the Apocalypse.
FatherTime89 9 months ago
I repeat what rdrakken commented earlier "Any nation worth its salt spends on the arts." The only reason I was exposed to the arts as a child is because my small Kansas town has a publicly funded art gallery as well as publicly funded adult and children's theaters. Without these publicly funded places my peers and I wouldn't have had any access to the arts. Having art is a result of being a strong nation... seems like people just want to throw the good things we have away.
boyinTshirt 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt Stealing is WRONG even when you throw some of what you have stolen in the guitar case in front of the "artist" playing on the corner.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I can understand someone being upset with what the government spends taxes on, but you seem to think the general idea of taxing people is stealing. Please tell me how your tax free society is going to work?
boyinTshirt 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt
Gov't is required so taxes are required to pay for gov't.
Read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and then Read the 10th Amendment.
Redistribution is TOTALLY different and AGAINST everything our nation stands for!
Enslaving some and forcing them to give the fruits of their labors (money) to others is INHUMANE.
"Art" is NOT a gov't "service" authorized by the Constitution.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 If you want to go back and live in the 17th century when the document was written, you need to hope for another independence. The rest of us will try to continue proving on the original document.
boyinTshirt 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt
Again, for YOU to use a crony-political HACK to FORCE ME to give YOU money for YOUR "art" is Slavery.
You have NO RIGHT to enslave ME to pay for YOUR (or anyone's) "art".
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 haha comparing it to slavery... you are an idiot.
boyinTshirt 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt
Redistribution is a form of slavery as those who are FORCED against their will to give money to those who refuse to earn for themselves are, in effect SLAVES.
When progressives-liberals-socialists-statists (whatever) resort to childish name-calling, that means that they KNOW that they have lost the Intellectual Argument.
Temper Tantrum: An emotional outburst that is typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, defiance, angry ranting & sometimes hitting.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I wasn't name calling, I was pointing out the fact that you are an idiot (a stupid or foolish person) :P
boyinTshirt 9 months ago
Comment removed
jmstein921 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt Taxes do not have to be taken by force. We can fund our government with a voluntary tax system. One type of system would be a tax levied on government protected contracts. If the individuals and/or corporations do not want government protection of their contract they can opt to not pay the tax. This means if the other person or corporation breaks the agreement, the injured party cannot sue the other for damages. There are many other examples and this could be include a sales tax.
ryanpmurphy 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt "Please tell me how your tax free society is going to work?"
In 500 words or less? No way. But if you want to find out, read "Chaos Theory" by Bob Murphy or "Power & Market" by Murray Rothbard. Both are solid reads, but "Power & Market" is probably the more scholarly of the two.
TehBANN3D 9 months ago
@boyinTshirt Because you grew up in some Podunk town in Kansas, the rest of the country owes you art? You couldn't travel to a larger city that had a gallery? It is the same argument that Obama is using right now to use our money to wire rural areas with high-speed internet cables. I think anyone who argues for more public funding for the arts needs to have a bit more respect for artists. I know many artists who make a living off of their trade, and don't need government to steal money for them.
ryanpmurphy 9 months ago
This is unworthy of ReasonTV.
1. Censorship is not an excuse to stop funding art, its a fundamental right in this nation to protest and demand change...would you cut off funding to EVERYTHING because someone somewhere doesnt like it? yeah...
2. Cant afford it? No. Stop all spending overseas before cutting one thing here, bring military spending in line with sanity and we CAN.
3. Any nation worth its salt spends on the arts, it is part of civilization.
This video is without reason.
rdrakken 9 months ago
@rdrakken Stealing MY tax money to fund YOUR sense of "art"is simply another form of Redistribution.
Redistribution (individual or corporate), the EVIL child of Hubris & Envy is Pandora's Box, when opened it makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients, TYRANTS of the powerful and CRONIES of the politicians all in the name of "helping" some by enslaving others.
Progressive Big Gov't Statists are Slaves, Slavers and Slave Traders.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago 40
@yakyakyak69 It also leads to propaganda. It means that the govt can fund what it thinks is art or what is favourable to it, and refuse funding to anything anti-govt. It helps it's friends and leaves its enemies to fend in an unfair market. It explains why it's so hard for interdependent studios these days. The govt helps out big media corps and everyone else is trying to play in an unfair game. It explains why there's so much artistic shit these days...
AshillaBeige 9 months ago
@AshillaBeige Yep!
When the gov't CAN redistribute it ALWAYS plays favorites to help concentrate power for crony-politicians by using taxpayer money to buy "support" from corrupt "special interest" groups & corporations.
PLUS, redistribution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 what you're talking about could be applied to any taxation. Taxation equals redistribution no matter how you look at it. What are you really expecting, voluntary taxation? maybe I dont want my tax money funding the war or public schools or roads (dirt is good enough for me!) its unfortunately a part of being a citizen.
CetraTJ 9 months ago
@CetraTJ No, you don't understand Redistribution!
Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals (taxpayers) to others (special interests). In this case, it's from taxpayers to Artists, but it could be from taxpayers to corporations in the form of "too big to fail" bailouts, but corporate bailouts can also benefit special interest unions like teachers & uaw at taxpayer expanse.
Roads & defense are used by all. GM vehicles & museums are NOT!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago 2
@yakyakyak69 "Roads & defense are used by all" well we all went to school when we were younger too. You've probably been to a museum. Also those road workers bid on the contract and one company gained "special interest over another" to do the work. The Vetern's healthcare isnt used by all. It's redistribution no matter how you slice it, you are trying to make up an imaginary line.
CetraTJ 9 months ago
@CetraTJ: Veterans protected "all"
2010GOP 9 months ago
@CetraTJ said: "It's redistribution no matter how you slice it." CORRECT! When this redistribution is at the FEDERAL level, YOU are FORCED to pay for "art" in another state that you will NEVER see and NEVER even know exists!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@rdrakken cut military or not, my tax is paying for both, yet i could do without either of you. beat it, deadbeat.
spyletu 9 months ago
@rdrakken 1. It is the government money that allows the censorship to occur. Publicly funded art is replacing privately funded art, which tends to skew art into supporting concepts government wants.
2. Just because we spend more money on something else doesn't mean it is not a valid area to cut spending.
3. I don't care what any other nation does, most other nations are corrupt democracies at best that border on mob rule. You are right about it being a part of civ. In fact art existed before gov
ryanpmurphy 9 months ago 3
@ryanpmurphy There is NO SUCH THING as "government money".
The gov't ONLY has money that was taken BY FORCE from you, your friends and neighbors.
Is it OK for your neighbor to break into your home, take youf wallet and buy aome paintings? Is it OK if he shows those paintings to others and calls that an "art gallery"?
If the mob outside votes for him to do this to you, is it THEN OK?
There are services that we ALL need, and others that only relate to a special "class" of Socialists.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I agree with you completely, I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I was referring directly to rdrakken's comment and ran out of space so I had to make my statement concise. As a photographer and friend of many painters and sculptors I am horrified by what the government considers art and that my representatives think they can spend my money on art of any kind.
ryanpmurphy 9 months ago
@ryanpmurphy 1. CENSORSHIP IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO STOP FUNDING THE ARTS...can you NOT read?
2. BULLSHIT. If we are overspending and cut spending to shit that actually SHOULD be cut...oh, like giving away billions to other nations, wars we never should have started fighting...then we WOULDNT BE over spending in the first place.
3. ***ANY NATION WORTH ITS SALT*** not EVERY OTHER nation...you need to go back to school and learn how to read.
rdrakken 9 months ago
@rdrakken 1. I read fine, You apparently have no ability to understand concepts. My point is in a rational and free society, censorship can only be done by the owner of the art or the property it is on. When everything is funded by government that gives them the right to censor everything. So if you didn't understand what I was saying let me be clear, your whole idea is wrong because the Government should not be censoring art, and the funding is the excuse used to censor.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@rdrakken 2. If you think cutting foreign aid and stopping the wars (both of which I agree with most likely for different reasons) will solve our fiscal problems, you are sorely mistaken. The real reason however that the government should not be funding art is that when you fund one artist, you are taking money away from other artists to pay their competitor. Like any bailout, handout, or work program you hurt one person to benefit another.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@rdrakken "Any nation worth its salt" implies a comparison with every other nation past and present. We don't need the gov. to fund art, artists do much better on their own. You need to go back to school to learn concept formation. And by the way when you want to quote something you put it in quotes. Oh yeah and CAPITALIZING EVERY LETTER, just makes you look like an idiot who doesn't know how to use language to properly accent the part of the sentence to be accented.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy "any nation worth its salt"
"Worth its salt" ~ To be competent, reasonably skilled.
"Any" one, some or all
"nation" community of people.
"one, some or all, communities of people,thats competent or reasonably skilled"
Yeah, thats someone comparing nations...Go back to fucking school and for the sake of the nation, dont VOTE again until you get a clue...you are just another in a long line of public school faliures.
rdrakken 8 months ago
@rdrakken Settle down there. I am wondering why you are incapable of having an adult conversation without swearing and ridicule. You are spouting the most incoherent dribble in that last comment, there is nothing there even worth considering. Are you a child? Or maybe you just need to lay off the sauce.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy awe, someone gave a comment that made you look like a complete fool and now you have to resort to the "OMG you used adult words and are offensive" reply.
Just stop posting already, you are an intellectual lightweight and your grasp of the language is weak at best. You tried to be a smart ass and through my entire post out and targeted a small portion of it backfired on you. Deal with it.
rdrakken 8 months ago
@rdrakken Made me look like a fool? Ha!! That one is rich. You haven't made a valid argument the entire time. Which I guess is why you are so sore, you have no arguments you can only resort to name calling. I am done talking with you, because I can see now debating you is like administering medicine to the dead.
ryanpmurphy 8 months ago
@ryanpmurphy please, post again with no direct comment pertaining to the bulk of your argument which has been throughly refuted. It truly adds to your overwhelming air of idiocy along with your "I am done with you" comment while taking the time to still reply as if you trying to prove to people you are supieror.
You have been refuted, you have no answer....yet for some reason you still reply, I dont think the word moron can be defined in a better way as you have managed with your last post.
rdrakken 8 months ago
Don't let artist starve.
FlowerClown 9 months ago
The same can be said for public funding of schools, transit and every other activity that involves robbing one group to fund the desires of another. Taxation is theft...no way around that.
harrybean2006 9 months ago
Superb clip, very well said!
BTW: a great read is the "Romantic Manifesto" by AYn Rand
RebelRadius 9 months ago 3
Frankly there are few areas that the Federal Gov't needs to provide funds for and the Arts isn't one of the two, period. The rest could go away and our over extending Federal Gov't would be back behind the confines of the Constitution where it belongs.
Leavon 9 months ago
All the reasons cited are valid. Two and a half years of financial mismanagement has left the country bankrupt. Public money for the arts has to go. If an individual wants to donate that is up to him. I for one am not willing to give money to someone to piss in a jar, drop a crucafix in it, and call it art. That is anti-christian expression, not art.
stanparrish1 9 months ago 2
Where's the Weiner connection? Did I miss it?
zime2006 9 months ago
Actors, artists are looking for free handouts, they live a glamourous live, at taxpayer's expense.
noirnegro 9 months ago 2
Kevin Spacey, you are an outstanding actor, artist, and entertainer. Stick to those things.
Wormtail81 9 months ago 2
@Wormtail81 Ronald Reagan should have stuck to acting too.
TigerghostPictures 9 months ago
In a Reason TV utopia the only art that would be funded would be advertising. I don't believe "profit" is now or should be the sole motivator for a society's betterment. Not every issue (economic, social, etc.) can be solved using economic theory. Application of such thought is just as cultist as the alternatives.
KyleOutrage 9 months ago
@KyleOutrage So in your view of the world, nobody buys art because they enjoy it? Just because someone defecates in a tin can and calls it art doesn't mean the rest of society should be forced to recognize it as such. The whole idea of the profit motive is that people are only rewarded for doing things that others view as worthy of reward. If someone wants to pay €124,000 for the privilege of owning a can of Piero Manzoni shit (been eating corn, eh?), that's their problem.
FreemanicParacusia 9 months ago
"Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey told Hardball's Chris Matthew that Abraham Lincoln was a huge theater fan"
How'd you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
JimC 9 months ago
And to not make myself look like a hypocrite, I would like to point out how stupid it is that the government funds film-making. With Hollywood and the always constant interest in independent film, not to mention the massive word-of-mouth and free promotion that the internet provides, what excuse does anyone have to support such a thing? A good deal of movies and music were found out by my use of the internet and many were not promo materials paid by the music artists and filmmakers.
danielinraleigh 9 months ago
Can we please have ONE libertarian-leaning video, especially from Reason.TV that doesn't have some commenter blurting out a slogan for Ron Paul and not saying anything about the video or the subject AT ALL?! There are many reasons to support Ron Paul, but it makes me think that many of his fans aren't that much less zombie-like than the ObamaZombies we saw back in 2008.
danielinraleigh 9 months ago
@danielinraleigh Why do you care? People can say what they want. And perhaps people who don't know about Ron Paul will come across videos like these and realize from the comments that Ron Paul is the only realistic libertarian presidential candidate we have and vote for him. And I bet if you ask just about any Ron Paul supporter difficult questions, they'll be able to give you a good answer.
Bristecom 9 months ago
@Bristecom I care because to me it makes Libertarians look like mindless sheep with a touch of leader-worship, which I know is not the case, but I fear that impression will be given. Also, I find it hard to believe any Libertarian hasn't at least heard of Ron Paul by now. Many Paul supporters are intelligent individuals who think for themselves. These posters, however, make it look like it's not true, and that their thoughts on politics and who they vote for are no deeper than a bumper sticker.
danielinraleigh 9 months ago
@danielinraleigh At least they're showing their passion. I think constant reminders are important although I do agree just saying his name isn't the most effective method. But realistically ATM Ron Paul is (our) best and perhaps only chance at reversing this crash course... The problem is that explaining why people should vote him in as president takes a lot of time and an intelligent individual to understand. It's not as simple as, "He gonna gib us free health cares and everythang!" :P
Bristecom 9 months ago
I should say, it's not even that I think the free market will ultimately reward true artists with a net-worth equal to their genius. Rather, the very thing that makes art endearing is that the artist forgoes these riches in order to make a statement. There are, obviously, personal rewards beyond money or else they wouldn't do it. But it's ironic that free-marketers are the ones accused of only caring about money when everytime I turn around it's the statists bitching about how little they make.
Beljora 9 months ago 2
I so agree with what is said in this video. National Endowment Arts ok i have no problem with this organization existing , just not with tax payers dollars.
computerpurple 9 months ago
If you are not making an honest living from your art, perhaps you should try something else?
arcanekrusader 9 months ago 36
@arcanekrusader Like serving coffee.
AshillaBeige 9 months ago
@arcanekrusader
We have a name for people who can't make a living with what they're doing: amateurs.
madass888 9 months ago
@arcanekrusader what exactly is a "honest living"? earning without lying? that's impossible in capitalism.
MrTrueMedia 9 months ago
@MrTrueMedia Earning without STEALING (redistribution) is impossible in Socialism!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago 2
@MrTrueMedia - You're so indoctrinated you're actually stupid. For those of you who want to see the stupidity of Leftist indoctrination on display I'll repeat what this Libtarded dipshit just said:
"@arcanekrusader what exactly is a "honest living"? earning without lying? that's impossible in capitalism."
That is UNBELIEVABLY stupid! It goes well beyond stupid to the point of Useful Idiot. A stupid person can understand that you could live off the land, without taxes, prosper, and never steal.
thomaserossi 9 months ago
1. While this is true, it is not a good reason to not fund something. Yes, not all art will get funding and provocative art will rarely get funding, but that does not mean you shouldn't fund any art.
2. This is a good reason, but then you could argue that we should cut all programs by XX percent, which cuts arts and military.
3. What is "necessary", is the government as a whole truly "necessary"? The idea of what is or is not necessary when it comes to funding is subjective at best.
Loathomar 9 months ago
@Loathomar The founding fathers knew what was necessary and what was not. The constitution clearly grants powers to maintain a military but no power to support "the arts". Currently all federal departments should be reduced, but all unconstitutional departments should be eliminated. In general, the government should not exist anywhere the private market cannot provide a particular need. Art, however it is defined, does fine on its own and even if it doesn't, it is hardly a necessity.
kev3d 9 months ago
@kev3d We have a outdoor festival in my city where local artists gather every year to sell pottery, paintings, blown glass, sculptures, etc. There is no lack of buyers - I myself make multiple purchases there every year.
Somehow, though, I think you'd be hard-pressed to peddle off a bottle of your own piss in such a venue.
Hence the NEA: a welfare program specifically for "artists" who would be otherwise unable to find a market for their products owing to the kind of crap they like to produce.
FreemanicParacusia 9 months ago
Ron Paul can go suck on Jesse "the Che fan" Ventura's commie cock.
sickofcommies 9 months ago
the only way to get anything done on washington is to create a very large and powerful lobby to bribe politicians. i believe that's called racketeering.
JackofOneTrade567 9 months ago
I´m a libertarian... But I sympathize with arts and cultural funding. Should be on a state level NOT federal if anything and everyone is right in saying it´s dangerous that government funds it because it could easily be turned into propoganda, However, if art was purely market based, all we´d have is more celebrity apprentices and Paris Hilton reality shows. No more symphony orchestras, operas, ballets or small theater. If thet get rid of the income tax, then I´ll push for no arts funding.
NLMF2011 9 months ago
@NLMF2011 There still exists a market for symphony orchestras and theatre. The popularity of Paris Hilton et al is a symptom of a culture of vapidity which is being aggressively promoted by organizations like the NEA and Department of Education, and the reason is obvious: An easily distracted population is an easily manipulated one.
Remember the girl who said she voted for Obama because she saw him dancing on Ellen? We get what we get for turning our electoral process into a reality TV show.
FreemanicParacusia 9 months ago 2
I am an artist and I agree 100% with this
manboy1 9 months ago 2
Here's my take. Im not an artist (at least not a good one) I am a small business owner. My company and I provide a needed service in the community in which I live. Some times business is good sometimes not so good so I budget my funds accordingly, advertise and work smart so that my going concern can keep going. Why are we, through our taxes subsidizing art? Hey if it's good art people will buy it, if not, well don't look at me, I have my own business to run and nobody is writing me checks.
Longeno55 9 months ago