Are You a Tax-Paid Artist? [Archive] - Sculpture Community

Navigator7

04-15-2006, 04:06 PM

Navigator.....are you even remotely interested in art ( I mean except as a tax issue.....) or are you just a right-wing crackpot?
What exactly in my posts suggests to you I am a crack pot?
Why should the government extort money from taxpayers?
Is there a law that excludes common sense and right wingers from art?

Art, like farming, ranching, logging, building, drilling for oil, designing, dreaming, reaching.....is best done without government intervention.

Can you explain why art should be subsidized in the first place?
Cannot artists stand without help?
Where is the error in my logic?

I'm aware I came in here like a bull in a china shop....but the "tudes" of some of the posters got to me like too many fumes.

Am I even remotely interested in art?
Heck yes!
Zoe Catell, an artist who works in foam has me in jitters! ;-)

JamesW

04-15-2006, 04:12 PM

I agree with you Studioinde...
Navigator seems to only use this community as a platform for right-wing views
which quite frankly I wouldn't dignify with a response.
Although I did find it rather hilarious that when asked to provide an example of the kind of art that inspires, Navigator posted a picture of a chalk drawing of a coke bottle on a side walk !

Unless we have some crazy Dada-ist comedian in our midst, I suspect Navigator is not a well person....

James

Navigator7

04-15-2006, 04:54 PM

I agree with you Studioinde...
Navigator seems to only use this community as a platform for right-wing views which quite frankly I wouldn't dignify with a response.
JamesW

Yet you did respond! Is that dignified?

Is your irritation with me because I have an opinion different from yours or does the topic and my posts hit a little close to home?

Let's see....this is a poll thread asking if you are a tax paid artist.
Are there any secret rules I missed or is everyone supposed to agree with each other? Or do they just ask polls and nobody responds here?

....I suspect Navigator is not a well person....~JamesW

If my opinion irritates you....and you indicate I'm not a well person....does your ideology offer a cure?

...Or were you simply trying to insult me?

grommet

04-15-2006, 10:52 PM

What exactly in my posts suggests to you I am a crack pot?

Can you explain why art should be subsidized in the first place?
Cannot artists stand without help?
Where is the error in my logic?

I'm aware I came in here like a bull in a china shop....but the "tudes" of some of the posters got to me like too many fumes.
You are very much like the bull in the china shop. You have very strong opinions and appear to be without creative instinct or compassion in your comments. This does not make you a bad person, but it makes the rest of ...(the world?) wary (weary)of your comments.
I consider tax-paid anything to be (hopefully) a collective attempt to make life a little better for the community as a whole. It isn't a huge amount, just a little extra from each person toward a common goal. The "many hands make light work" idea. I don't consider lining someone's pockets a community service, whereas I do think a little culture and community can go a long way in making people remember their humanity, their creativity, their dreams. What were your dreams?

Navigator7

04-15-2006, 11:23 PM

I consider tax-paid anything to be (hopefully) a collective attempt to make life a little better for the community as a whole. ...~Grommet

Ahhhh....socialism! I see the light.
It don't work, grommet.
A "tax-paid" anything is extortion.
Community does not come from the collection of taxes. Quite the opposite in fact!

There is only one-ism that works every where it's tried...Capital-ism.

Grommet wrote...trying to imply Nav7 is dreamless, hopeless and without creativeness.
What were your dreams?~Grommet

Nice try Grommet. ;-)
Is there anybody here that can argue against my point?
Is the limit of your "culture" to call me names and suggest I'm less a human than the rest?

Hit a nerve, have I?

JamesW

04-16-2006, 03:28 AM

Good point Grommet - it is the role of government to enhance the social functioning of the community it serves - and public art has an important role to play in this.
Many ancient cultures knew this well. Imagine a world without the legacy of the public & indeed contemporary (at the time it was created) art left by the Greeks, Indians, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Mayans etc etc.

Who would be foolish enough to argue that these works were a waste of public funds generated through tax?

It is well established that public art enhances the quality of life for communities and I'm happy that some of my taxes fund this activity.
I'm sure that as artists we all acknowedge that art has enriched our lives - lets share the love(!).
James

Navigator7

04-16-2006, 11:48 AM

Good point Grommet - it is the role of government to enhance the social functioning of the community it serves - and public art has an important role to play in this.
James

I believe you believe in your position about the role government should play funding the arts. Fortunately, you are incorrect. Funding the arts is not called out in the Constitution. Which is not to say the government always spends our tax dollars properly....pork barrel comes to mind.

Your statement above about government role in social functioning is misinformed or better still, an oxymoron.
There are truly a few things government should do: Protect our borders, infrustructure, defend our country and foreign interests.
Funding public art with taxpayer's money is a detour through a dark alley.

On the other hand,....in pre 1976, if I remember correctly....our country's 200 year birthday, there was going to be a big party in NYC. The Statue of Liberty was falling apart. She was bad.
Money was donated by the citizens to give her a face lift. The cash poured in. It was great!

American citizens are the best judge of where to spend their money....and like in the Statue Of Liberty...the donations exceeded the request. My point is...If Art is the goal there is nobody more giving in the world than Americans.

JamesW

04-16-2006, 06:27 PM

I believe you believe in your position about the role government should play funding the arts. Fortunately, you are incorrect. Funding the arts is not called out in the Constitution. Which is not to say the government always spends our tax dollars properly....pork barrel comes to mind.

Your statement above about government role in social functioning is misinformed or better still, an oxymoron.
There are truly a few things government should do: Protect our borders, infrustructure, defend our country and foreign interests.
Funding public art with taxpayer's money is a detour through a dark alley.

On the other hand,....in pre 1976, if I remember correctly....our country's 200 year birthday, there was going to be a big party in NYC. The Statue of Liberty was falling apart. She was bad.
Money was donated by the citizens to give her a face lift. The cash poured in. It was great!

American citizens are the best judge of where to spend their money....and like in the Statue Of Liberty...the donations exceeded the request. My point is...If Art is the goal there is nobody more giving in the world than Americans.
An interesting example to choose as it demonstrates how there is a role for both public and private sector funding of the arts. 'In May of 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Lee Iacocca to head up a private sector effort to restore the Statue of Liberty. Fundraising began for the $87 million restoration under a public/private partnership between the National Park Service and the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc., to date the most succesful such partnership in American history'.(taken from the National Park Service website.)
I agree that it's great to see the general public get involved in supporting the arts however goverment can (and do) successfully take a lead role in this area as well.
James

Araich

04-17-2006, 04:56 AM

I've never had one dollar in tax money for my sculpture. No grants, no academic support and no public purchases.

However I completely support public funds (tax) being used moderately for art, just as they are for everything from sport through to botanic gardens.

And frankly, the idea that the constitution alone should guide or limit all government expenditure is moronic in the extreme. These documents offer a starting point, not an end point for the development of a free and healthy society.

Navigator7

04-17-2006, 11:16 AM

And frankly, the idea that the constitution alone should guide or limit all government expenditure is moronic in the extreme. These documents offer a starting point, not an end point for the development of a free and healthy society.
You nipped it a bit at the end of your comments.
A free and healthy society is the by-product of less government.
A free and healthy society comes when the people have a firm grip on their government. The best of everything comes from outside government.

As to your first statement, the constitution is exactly that! A document which limits the power for government to take from it's citizens.
Moronic in the extreme...your term...is all money taken by the government for purposes of benevolence.

Studioinde

04-17-2006, 12:01 PM

Why don't you just go spout your reactionary crap on freerepublic.com or some other neo-fascist outlet for the distortion of reality? You've got plenty of hate mongers to choose from to agree with you there, or on FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh! ....but to answer your question, NO, I'm not a tax paid artist. I've done public art commissions, but NONE of it has ever been funded by the federal or state government......the money i've paid into taxes is being wasted on an unjust war in Iraq! Or some other Crusade that makes me sick....there are a lot worse things to spend tax money on than something to bring culture and beauty to a society in such desperate need of both......better that than some bailout for billionaires and political cronies.

sculptorsam

04-17-2006, 03:43 PM

Maybe you can help me out, Navigator7. I don't mind conservative voices on the forum, it livens things up. On another forum I frequent serving mostly artists in my state, we had a conservative fellow similar to yourself, though more Republican than conservative. Similar to you, he would quite often and consistently criticize the use of public funds for artworks. That's cool, it's a legitimate position to defend.

But my question is, why post on art forums and target tax-support for the arts? It represents such a tiny percentage of the federal budget as to be non-existent. We are currently spending more in a single day in Iraq than the entire yearly budget for the visual arts. If your goal is to reduce taxes, why not go on senior citizen's forums and argue for the abolition of Social Security? Why not frequent big-business forums and criticize the hypocricy of their accepting massive subsidies? I understand philosophically you may be against all taxes, but wouldn't it be a more effective use of your time to target the big "offenders?"

It strikes me as similar to those opposed to abortion trying to get the government to interfere in citizen's lives instead of spending their time supporting sex-ed and proper use of birth control, which would actually reduce the number of abortions performed. In the real world, such choices strike me as more akin to fanaticism than advancing a position.

But to answer the question, I have received grants from a state organization though the money provided for my grant was by a private philanthropic company. So where that puts me I don't know.

Blacksun

04-17-2006, 03:59 PM

Let's see.....In addition to a large body of privately commissioned and purchased art....I've done large scale Public / Civic monuments, Public University monuments and small scale sculptures, have exhibited in Galleries, Spaces and Museums operated by Public funds (in which I have made sales), have been commissioned by Government entities to design & create works for presentation to other Government entities in this country and abroad, and have been the Director of a regional gallery that was supported by Public, Individual, & Corporate funding (for which the corporations and individuals involved received appropriate tax deductions). I have recieved an NEA funded "Grassroots public art program" grant for an interactive sculpture exhibition on the beach in a State Park, and my studio is located on State controlled limited development (subsidized) land adjacent to a County owned airport.

So, yes, I guess I am a "Tax-Paid" Artist. I don't see a problem...value given for value received.

Thanks to all for your contributions to my well being!

jim

04-19-2006, 11:41 PM

Easy on fox news its not that bad...limbaugh is however...

ilona

04-20-2006, 10:24 PM

No. I am a taxpayer, though.

And I would love to see my tax money go towards any sort of art, even art I don't appreciate personally, rather than war or oil subsidies.

MountainSong

04-22-2006, 12:41 PM

No, taxes pay me nothing and further more people have to pay taxes on my artwork, even more, sells from my work jackup our income bracket and we get taxed even more than if I wasn’t an artist.
But you pique my curiosity with your question….how does one get paid by tax monies? Oh, I think I've figured it out.

sculptorsam

04-22-2006, 09:25 PM

Still waiting, Navigator.

The silence is beginning to speak for itself.

Navigator7

04-23-2006, 11:08 AM

Still waiting, Navigator.

The silence is beginning to speak for itself.

LOL...not likely.
I didn't see the question....but thanks for the label anyway.

Your question was:
"But my question is, why post on art forums and target tax-support for the arts?"

I didn't come here with a political axe to grind.
I remain blown away by the contrary thought processes of the majority here. It seems so many look to the government as it's savior....and cannot comprehend the slippery slope of:
"It represents such a tiny percentage of the federal budget as to be non-existent.~Sculptorsam
Your mentality that the government is an unending source for sustenance is death by a 1000 cuts for society. Particularly the producing citizens of America coerced into paying for the ''feel good" agenda.

So, I elected to get a few licks in.

Welfare for the arts is a fallacy.
Like the millions on welfare who've made it a career but not bettered themselves and instead play the smoke and mirrors game engaged in something for nothing. It's a taxpayer ripoff. In the end, society is the worse for the effort.

You mentioned the money spent on the war on terror. That expense "IS" called out for in the constitution. We can argue the right or wrong of it from the comfort of our homes.

Unlike ...welfare....which is not called out in the constitution.

If the liberal agenda of helping the poor and downtrodden from the sewers was such a nobel thing....how come we still have poor and downtrodden?
Because it doesn't work!

Show me the art and the artist that stands on it's own.

cpsturrock

04-23-2006, 11:40 AM

Well said Sam.

grommet

04-23-2006, 02:04 PM

Navigator, your logic is the only creativity I see coming out of your pie-hole.

We, like anyone else, are just struggling to "make it". Investigating any possible advantage or legal perk that would allow us a small amount of security (yes! I can afford studio space for another month!) is just common sense & survival of the fittest. It is not "welfare for the arts". The fact that people value the arts enough to ensure that they continue gives me faith in humanity. I will gladly give my tax dollars for the arts, for education, the needy and neglected. As to welfare fraud, I'll admit it's a problem for some, but these people do not hold the patent on fraud. The rich swinging phallus has his own temptations & list of indiscretions. ( Do you want names?)
Screw the tax cuts for billionaires who grease palms & don't pay the bills from companies/ people too small to fight back.
I stand on my own & have no expectations that anyone will ever give me anything.

sculptorsam

04-23-2006, 02:27 PM

Thanks for not addressing my question, Navigator. It really is the answer I expected, but not the one I'd hoped for.

You say "death by a 1000 cuts," but the arts "cut" is miniscule compared to, say, social security. So why aren't you on the AARP forum telling the elderly to suck it up and quit leaching off the government tit, as it were? Or, in keeping with my abortion analogy, are you not concerned with government tax and spending as much as you are a fanatic on the matter? I realize my questions are of a utilitarian nature, and as such inherently disgusting to the fundamentalist of all stripes, but they still stand.

I do, however, appreciate the irony of you asking to see the artist that stands on their own after you have already insulted the work of Araich here on the forum. There he is, just standing there, selling works right and left. Isn't the free market great?

ilona

04-23-2006, 04:06 PM

What I don't get is, people who have so much time on their hands that they can come into an arts forum just to yank people's chains.

Personally, I would rather spend my free time MAKING ART rather than arguing semantics with an idiot who woudln't know good art if it fell on him.

But, maybe that's just me.

Navigator7

04-23-2006, 05:24 PM

Personally, I would rather spend my free time MAKING ART rather than arguing semantics with an idiot who woudln't know good art if it fell on him

LMAO!
To me...that is what is so funny about some of you "artists".
You are bitching at me over what you do with your free time.
I really don't give a flying....(fill in the blank). Just don't tax "me" for your adventures.
I didn't start this thread...but I do believe it hits a nerve that doesn't get used much and I'm happy to exercise it for you.

This forum is a hoot. It's almost psychotic. In golf, it's called paralysis by analysis. It's like a bunch of car salesman talking to each other in hopes of selling one another. The customer is something else again!

It doesn't matter if I know what good art is even if I'm falling over it.
IMHO...this forum is full of crap art. That banner that floats across the top of my screen is....like exactly the type of tax paid crap I am so opposed to. It's my opinion. Get over it.
Yet....there are some here that produce art that is stunning beyond belief. Bigger than life.

When I put a dollar down for art work....it's because it's worth it to me. Is there any other value judgment?

Araich

04-23-2006, 05:52 PM

Sam, I agree. It is a mystery to me also why someone like Charles here finds it necessary to post in a forum like this. I suppose for them the world is simply black and white.

It must be nice to be so confident in ones opinions.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Navigator7

04-23-2006, 06:07 PM

Navigator7, your logic is the only creativity I see coming out of your pie-hole.~[quote]

(Notice Grommet's use of insult before even making a point. My use of logic as Grommet see it is a compliment to me although I don't believe Grommet meant it as such.)

[quote]We, like anyone else, are just struggling to "make it". Investigating any possible advantage or legal perk that would allow us a small amount of security (yes! I can afford studio space for another month!) is just common sense & survival of the fittest.~Grommet

Are you saying going after taxpayer money to make your ends meet is A-Ok?

A Legal perk? Is that like a ....Grant? It's called sucking off the teat of Uncle Sam. I'm sick of grants. I live in the land of grants. People here make a damn good living writing down crap on paper to get money from the taxpayers. It's a crime. Our government pays 1000's of dollars......for grants via grants writers to give taxpayer's money away. This grant business is a crock and needs to stop!

It is not "welfare for the arts". The fact that people value the arts enough to ensure that they continue gives me faith in humanity. I will gladly give my tax dollars for the arts, for education, the needy and neglected. ~Grommet
Go ahead and give! I'm not opposed to giving...I'm opposed to taxing and calling it giving. What else can it be called? Welfare! Money is taken from those who earn it and it is given to those who have not. Welfare is the kindest description for the act of giving money to the arts.

As to welfare fraud, I'll admit it's a problem for some, but these people do not hold the patent on fraud. The rich swinging phallus has his own temptations & list of indiscretions. ( Do you want names?)
Screw the tax cuts for billionaires who grease palms & don't pay the bills from companies/ people too small to fight back. ~Grommet
Get off your high horse. Your claims are BS. The Top 50% in America pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes. The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%.
You say screw the rich....when there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a millionaire...or billionaire?

I'd say there is more wrong with charging the public for art no one wants or appreciates and taxpayers have no choice in the matter. Simple extortion.

Aside from that....you give a minimum wage person a tax cut...what will they do with the extra....for argument sake.....10%. If minimum wage is $7.20, 10% is 72 cents for every dollar they earn. At the end of a year the tax break saves roughly $1260.00. Give a millionaire a 10% tax break and he might form a new business and put 100's or 1000's to work. Coming down on the wealthy for getting a bigger tax break than a minimum wager is just a weak argument on your part.

I stand on my own & have no expectations that anyone will ever give me anything.~ Grommet
Great!...But you suggested in your post everyone is like you, struggling to "make it" and investigating any possible advantage or legal perk to afford you a small amount of security.....which means you would willingly use taxpayer money to establish that security

I suggest your security should come from your art without any taxpayer support!
If so...I salute you!
;-)

sculptorsam

04-23-2006, 06:35 PM

Just observing that you still have not addressed my question. Should I take your refusal itself as the answer?

Another irony - none of the work on the top banner was paid for by tax money. Further proof that irony is not your strong suit.

Cheers.

grommet

04-23-2006, 07:46 PM

Get off your high horse. Your claims are BS. The Top 50% in America pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes. The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%.
You say screw the rich....when there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a millionaire...or billionaire?

I'd say there is more wrong with charging the public for art no one wants or appreciates and taxpayers have no choice in the matter. Simple extortion.

Aside from that....you give a minimum wage person a tax cut...what will they do with the extra....for argument sake.....10%. If minimum wage is $7.20, 10% is 72 cents for every dollar they earn. At the end of a year the tax break saves roughly $1260.00. Give a millionaire a 10% tax break and he might form a new business and put 100's or 1000's to work. Coming down on the wealthy for getting a bigger tax break than a minimum wager is just a weak argument on your part.

For the record, my horse has very short legs, worn to nubs. I also did not say "screw the rich". There's nothing wrong with being rich. There is something wrong with being rich with no morals. I speak from experience. One particular client had many demands, rush accomodations and minute changes & in the end refused to pay because he said flippantly he "didn't like it". The lawyers involved said there were several other businesses with the same beef with him. In the end, his billionaire pockets are deeper than ours, and our contracts not as ironclad as we believed. S.O.L.

It's none of your business what that minimum wage person does with an extra couple bucks. I think they should have the choice. If it's really "chump change" what do you care? The high roller may or may not start a new business, who knows? Chances are that if he is receiving such savings from a tax break, that he already has the resources to start that new business. It's all just guesses, & a tax break for a "maybe" situation doesn't sound like a good bet to me.
Trust me, it is only your creative logic that would allow you to read my comments as a compliment.

ilona

04-23-2006, 08:03 PM

Maybe navigator is a citizen of a European country. In most of those countries the tax rate is much higher than anything we pay.

And I am fairly certain that most European countries subsidize the arts much more heavily than the US.

Navigator7

04-23-2006, 08:54 PM

Just observing that you still have not addressed my question.

I quoted your question....and responded. Stop being so cryptic and ask me again!
Sheeeez!

Navigator7

04-23-2006, 08:59 PM

I also did not say "screw the rich". There's nothing wrong with being rich.

Screw the tax cuts for billionaires who grease palms & don't pay the bills from companies/ people too small to fight back. ~Grommet

Looks to me Like you did....but whatever.

I dunno....not paying bills is not a rich poor thingy, liberal or conservative thingy. Not paying your bills is not paying your bills.

Navigator7

04-23-2006, 09:05 PM

It's none of your business what that minimum wage person does with an extra couple bucks. I think they should have the choice. If it's really "chump change" what do you care? The high roller may or may not start a new business, who knows? Chances are that if he is receiving such savings from a tax break, that he already has the resources to start that new business. It's all just guesses, & a tax break for a "maybe" situation doesn't sound like a good bet to me.~grommet

I say we all pay a flat tax based on our gross. End of story. Put a lot of accountants out of work but I'm a heartless conservative. So what?

Trust me, it is only your creative logic that would allow you to read my comments as a compliment.~Grommet

Dang....You did it again! ;-)

grommet

04-24-2006, 07:11 AM

My point is that with monetary power comes increased risk -- for those who do business with the source. While people with money have the resources to move mountains, they also have the ability to flatten them. The guy who is in arrears on a bill for a one day job is not going to create the disaster that the guy with the months long job with many people does when he decides he doesn't want to pay. I don't despise rich people, I despise schmucks who abuse their power.

As to the flat tax idea, it's been a topic of discussion here at tax time. I'd give it a go, but then I don't have 10 kids.

Blacksun

04-25-2006, 02:08 AM

I think part of the problem here is a failure to realize that probably none of us are "pure" when it comes to receiving benefits as an artist from "Tax dollars". Did your Art education come from a public university? And if it was a private university, are you certain they received no support from the government? Have you ever exhibited in a publicly supported Gallery (University, city hall, regional Co-op, airport, etc... even a "private" gallery that is up & running, thanks be to god, because of a Small Business Administration Loan or Development Grant)? Have you ever advanced your artistic career one bit by your use of the US Government devloped and highly subsidized Internet (say thank you DARPA)? Have you ever received inspiration or learned a new technique or a twist on an old one from viewing another artist's work in some publicly supported venue? Where is your studio - on a piece of private land that is receiving some sort of economic incentive as an industrial / development area? Look real close at yourself before you claim purity as a non-tax paid artist....

I think Navigator has a valid point in calling for self-sufficiency and independence for artists.... In theory I would love to see all artists completely and 100% successful from their own independent efforts :rolleyes: . But reality says that if you are "successful" in monetary terms in the art world,you have probably benefited from some sort of tax paid program. It may not have been as direct as a grant check written to you and deposited in your bulging bank account (I'm laughing here guys...the one direct grant I ever got covered about 60% of the costs of producing the exhibit it was intended to support...the rest came forom my private pocket..), but if you are honest and thoughtful, I'm sure each of you can find at least one example of tax paid assistance for your career. Hell, I'm sure Navigator can find the same for Himself. Ain't no-body pure.

The key is the value given for the value received. Some "public" art is so bad I'm surprised anyone would claim it as their own. I've seen sculpture that was nothing more than the 1/2 hour effort of pushing some scrap iron and concrete into a pile...and the artist walked away with a State of Florida check for a professional's annual salary :mad: . I've also seen "Tax paid" sculpture of such beauty and power that I wept and was emotionally changed forever :D . I just want to see value for value when I think of tax paid art :)

Thanks for the opportunity to share my 2 cents...... and let me add to my previous post in this thread.... My public university education was also subsidized by direct US Govt. payments to me via the G.I. Bill - thank you America!!

sculptorsam

04-25-2006, 09:48 AM

Don't forget that you may use the Interstate Highway System to drive to an exhibition, camp out at a state park to save on a hotel, or researched the whole deal at your local library. Good points, Blacksun, but they benefit darn near everyone. Of course we all have advantages because of government spending. That's kinda the point.

What I don't understand, and what Navigator refuses to address, is if you're against goverment subsidy of all kinds why not harass those who use it the most? Funding for the arts compared to Social Security, Medicare, or hell, even faith-based charities is so tiny as to be non-existant. It's like locusts are devouring your field and instead of attacking them, you put all your might into swatting some lady-bugs which may or may not be doing any real damage. I guess if you need a hobby, go ahead and keep after the lady-bugs. But then don't claim you're concerned about the health of the crop as a whole.

Blacksun

04-25-2006, 10:28 AM

Yes, that is the point...we all have benefited from the largess of the government to a greater or lesser degree. There are no purists in this argument....I'm sure Navigator7 has had his moments of government assistance, as well as all the artists responding to this thread. Has an agent of the government walked up and directly handed you a check to pay you for being an artist....maybe not, but your career as an artist has received calculable Tax dollar benefit. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

Representative governments see the big picture and allocate resources accordingly.... Priorities are decided and decisions made...and some of that goes for what should be uplifting for the spirit of man....THE ARTS. I only ask that art which is supported by public money be uplifting and demonstrate the tiniest amount of quality. I'm real tired of public money directly supporting people with zero talent for creating the physical object, but masters at slinging grants bu*****t.

My to cents and a fiver will buy you a NYC cup of coffee... :D

Navigator7

04-25-2006, 11:03 AM

The key is the value given for the value received. Some "public" art is so bad I'm surprised anyone would claim it as their own. I've seen sculpture that was nothing more than the 1/2 hour effort of pushing some scrap iron and concrete into a pile...and the artist walked away with a State of Florida check for a professional's annual salary :mad: . I've also seen "Tax paid" sculpture of such beauty and power that I wept and was emotionally changed forever :D . I just want to see value for value when I think of tax paid art :)

You made a lot of good points in your post.
Like above.
It would be "nice" if all taxpayer funded art was the best there ever was.
Regardless, it's still not the proper use of tax dollars.

I simply can't think of any art work that has change my life paid for by taxpayers. Although tax payer financed artwork does influence me emotionally....hence my low opinion of taxpayer funded art.
My real point always gets lost.....is there is no real true mechanism for taking money from the citizens and giving it to artists.
It is simply and fundamentally wrong.
Giving money to the arts by citizens of this country is fine by me.
Taxing the citizens so government can give the money to the arts is FUBAR!

It's akin to the IRS agent coming to your door and confiding his daughter needs braces so he is calling for you to give him another 25¢.....which you are happy to do just to get him out of your house. The dollar amount is small but the act is still criminal.

SculptorSam.....use of the interstate system is considered infrastructure and specifically called out in the constitution. I have no problem paying money for our highway system, bridges and the like.

Also....You continue to make an issue over "Why" I'm wasting my time here rather than frequenting some other target rich environment arguing my case. I've answered you twice but another reason has spurred me on.

Until you agree with me....I guess I'm gonna hang around! ;-)

Studioinde

04-25-2006, 06:30 PM

well, I guess you're going to be here a really, REALLY LONG TIME!........I don't see hell cooling off anytime soon.

And I seem to recall that the last politician of any note that proposed a flat tax on gross income was Jerry Bown of California, A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT! And he proposed it more than fifteen years ago! Funny that your so called conservatives in power currently have created more RECKLESS deficit spending, sucking off Uncle Sam's Tit, not to mention freely outsourcing jobs and infrastructure to foreign countries, than any administration in HISTORY!

Why don't you put your efforts where your big mouth is, and go after the real culprits! Liars and criminals who use their USURPED political power to line the pockets of their cronies with no thought for the consequences to the vast majority of people in this country!

And for your further edification, the Constitution is considered by the supreme court of this nation (stauchly conservative, currently BTW) to be a "living document". That means its open to interpretation and amendment. Either you have to agree with this, or you still believe that African Americans AND Women are no more than the personal property of white men! And those white men had better own property Or they don't really count either! Which is it, Navigator? You can't have it both ways and still be considered to be making a logical, credible arguement. (But I guess logic has never been the strong suit of reactionaries).

Navigator7

04-25-2006, 08:33 PM

well, I guess you're going to be here a really, REALLY LONG TIME!........I don't see hell cooling off anytime soon.

I like your description of this place! ;-)

And I seem to recall that the last politician of any note that proposed a flat tax on gross income was Jerry Bown of California, A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT! And he proposed it more than fifteen years ago!-Studioinde
Are you saying a Democrat proposing something and a republican actually accomplishing something are the same thing? We all have great ideas every day and most of us do nothing about it.
It was Reagan, a democrat turned republican, who did something...pulled California out of bankruptcy, ended Carter's 18% inflation rate and massive unemployment, ended the cold war without killing a soul, lead America and the world to a super powerhouse GNP because of a tiny tax reduction. It works every time it's tried.

Funny that your so called conservatives in power currently have created more RECKLESS deficit spending, sucking off Uncle Sam's Tit, not to mention freely outsourcing jobs and infrastructure to foreign countries, than any administration in HISTORY!~Studioinde

Reckless deficit spending is what the Left calls defending our nation.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

It's easy for the opposition to capitalize politically on this. America wasn't attacked while one of "their Presidents" was in office. You are using the death of nearly 3000 American souls and the defense of our nation as a political soapbox. The other thing Liberals assume is war is perfect.

If Gore was president perhaps our cities would not be inhabitable because America deserves to be destroyed....which has become the left's mantra.
That's my soapbox.

And Carter gave away the Panama Canal? No biggy?
Never mind the respect other nations showed carter...namely Iran which returned 444 American hostages the day Reagan took the oath of office.
Carter gave us "The Misery Index"
Nuclear secrets stolen on clinton's watch.... no biggie? (Might Iran be using 'em?)
Outsourcing is a direct result of a liberal mindset, liberal courts and a liberal political presence devastating this country...not the result of a republican agenda.
The Left has made it so hard to make a buck Americans are packing it up so they can do what they do best....build a product the world wants.
The Left persecutes the same businesses in real life knife fights while on the other hand demanding better jobs and complaining business is leaving.

Name one problem and I provide data showing the liberal cause.

You want business to return to America?....knock off the liberals sucking on American producers.

Why don't you put your efforts where your big mouth is, and go after the real culprits! Liars and criminals who use their USURPED political power to line the pockets of their cronies with no thought for the consequences to the vast majority of people in this country!
You mean like this?:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49887

And for your further edification, the Constitution is considered by the supreme court of this nation (stauchly conservative, currently BTW) to be a "living document". That means its open to interpretation and amendment. Either you have to agree with this, or you still believe that African Americans AND Women are no more than the personal property of white men! And those white men had better own property Or they don't really count either! Which is it, Navigator? You can't have it both ways and still be considered to be making a logical, credible arguement. (But I guess logic has never been the strong suit of reactionaries).

Geez....I believed I've just been asked the old reporters tactic: Do I still beat my wife!
A Living Document? Is that where John and Ted constitutes a husband and wife?
Your side of the fence is totally willing to turn our Constitution into a living dormat, welcoming behavior and beliefs unthinkable to the framers and yet pay for your shaky ideals by the remaining Americans who haven't left the country.

grommet

04-26-2006, 06:58 AM

Hey, why don't we take this outside? Start a new thread as this has deviated appreciably and at length from its origin. A nice padded thread from which to box safely. :rolleyes: It's not likely we'll ever see eye to eye, but perhaps shed some light... So Navigator, are you a Constitution scholar? Start the thread.

ilona

04-26-2006, 11:25 AM

Blacksun

04-27-2006, 09:56 AM

This is a sculpture forum.

Personally, I don't give credit to anyone who gets in here and argues with artists but lacks the gumption to create their own work, or post pictures of what they have created.

It takes courage to create something and to show it to the world. Anyone who lacks that courage also lacks the right to condemn those who do.

Then perhaps we should moderate and limit posts and polls on this board to only directly sculpture related discussions.

Not sure if I agree with your proposition; that only those who have stepped up to the line and done the work should be able to criticize or argue over concepts, principles, beliefs, etc... If we adopted that criteria then the only people on this site that should have an expressed opinion about war, the military, the ongoing war between Islam and the West, etc would be Military Veterans, Spys, or Ops Analysts, etc. That kind of narrows the field of who can comment.... Under your rules, in re-reading the previous posts about "THE WAR" I think there are only 2 -3 posters (including me) that qualify to comment. Kind of limits the discussion a bit doesn't it?

Personally I like a free exchange of ideas.... of course I've had my posts eliminated because they hurt someones feelings.... :( Perhaps we could all take a lesson from that great Southern USA Jurist, Learned Hand, who said (paraphrasing...as it has been far too long since I read this in law school... :) ) that there is no right to be free from having your feelings hurt, and that the offended parties should just grow thicker skin...

That would probably solve quite a number of our pressing world problems.

As for me, I've always liked "oderint dum metuant" as a motto for world affairs. Worked well for the romans until they stopped watching the borders...

Going to make little rocks out of big ones now.... Y'all have a great day :)

JamesW

04-27-2006, 02:59 PM

Hi There
Hoping to add a more positive spin on this discussion.....
My local state government implemented a public art policy in July 1999. Basically this encourages an allocation of 2% of capital works building budgets towards public art.
Since this policy came into effect 133 projects have been completed totalling $AUS 15.3 million. These diverse public art projects have created 1141 jobs for artists and art workers throughout the State.
There is a broad concensus that this program enriches and enhances the environment in which we live and work as well as providing employment opportunities for artists.
Not all the projects are to my own personal aesthetic taste but why should they be? I'm not interested in imposing my taste on others. Besides if public art is going to reflect the diversity in the community then it is unlikely to appeal to all of the people all of the time.
The other spin off of publc art is that a lot of the work is sculptural and therefore raises the profile of contemporary sculptural/3D art practice.
I'm happy - no actually proud that my tax dollars are spent in this way. And no, I have never personally recieved any public monies to produce art but I'm sure glad other artists have.
Cheers
James

G. Murdoch

04-27-2006, 08:04 PM

I agree with James that a percentage of budgets for public construction projects to be used for public art is entirely excellent. I just wish the selection process could involve the public (who pay for, and look at, the art) more than the current model. I'm not sure who sits on the selection comittees in Australia, here they are typically composed of city beurocrats, an art insructor from an art college, and perhaps an arts writer for the local paper. Artist's submit thier proposals, 3 are short listed to present maquettes, then one artist is chosen. The public is not invited to participate in the selection process.

Last year's project was different. The money came from the Somerset residents association, my maquette sat in the community centre for 3 months, during which time all residents were able to comment & critique my proposal, then they had a meeting where the residents were able to vote whether or not they wanted to spend the money, to have me carve it big and place it in the park. I'm grateful they chose to do so, and now my sculpture is part of thier community.

I'd be willing to wager that the majority of public art existing in the city would not have been approved if the public had a say. There would still be the same amount of art, but it would be art that people enjoy looking at. Under the current system, we get public art that only appeals to tiny cliques of art experts.

Graham

ilona

04-27-2006, 10:43 PM

Then perhaps we should moderate and limit posts and polls on this board to only directly sculpture related discussions.

I didn't suggest that, Blacksun.

Not sure if I agree with your proposition; that only those who have stepped up to the line and done the work should be able to criticize or argue over concepts, principles, beliefs, etc... If we adopted that criteria then the only people on this site that should have an expressed opinion about war, the military, the ongoing war between Islam and the West, etc would be Military Veterans, Spys, or Ops Analysts, etc. That kind of narrows the field of who can comment.... Under your rules, in re-reading the previous posts about "THE WAR" I think there are only 2 -3 posters (including me) that qualify to comment. Kind of limits the discussion a bit doesn't it?

First of all, I happen to weigh the opinion of a war veteran much more heavily than pretty much anyone else, when discussing our current war situation. I work with a guy who just returned form Iraq, and I value his opinion much more highly than the average Joe with regards to iraq, because he has put in the time serving our country. So while I am not saying that no one else has a right to discuss war, I do weigh his opinion more heavily.

I would likewise say it is extreme to moderate the site and only allow sculptors to post here. But I don't think its unreasonable to ask that non-sculptors not come in here and criticize artists for accepting government money or whatever else some artists have to do to make ends meet. I venture that someone who is critical of that has never been so compelled to create that he was willing to sacrifice everything to do it. And to take that thing you have created and show it to the world, as I said before, takes great courage. For many people the fear of rejection is enough to discourage them from trying to sell their art at all.

I see it as a respect issue. I respect soldiers too much to criticize their views on war. I don't see anything wrong with asking for respect from a non-artist when it comes to art issues.

Personally I like a free exchange of ideas.... of course I've had my posts eliminated because they hurt someones feelings.... :( Perhaps we could all take a lesson from that great Southern USA Jurist, Learned Hand, who said (paraphrasing...as it has been far too long since I read this in law school... :) ) that there is no right to be free from having your feelings hurt, and that the offended parties should just grow thicker skin...

Thick skin is a useful thing to have. But, so is good manners.

iowasculptor

04-28-2006, 09:48 AM

Well, Ive stayed out of this one but I thought I would weigh in on some trends that I have noticed on this site. One is that the contention that some people have for others needs to stop we need to be supporting each other and if we are going to discuss a topic it needs to be in an open and "happy" way. There have been a lot of threads that people have started that seem to have gone into the I don't like your opinion and I'm not going to listen to you and so there is a lot of endless back and forth with no positive outcome coming out of it. That being said...
As far as this thread, I am a completely tax supported artist. My job as a professor at a state university is tax sponsored, my art which municipalities and states purchase is all tax supported. I am proud of job and the work I do, in my opinion cities, states, have the responsibility to create a quality of life for their citizens regardless whether their citizens are rich or poor, all people deserve nice parks, educational opportunities, safe communities and opportunities to experience creative works, either visual art of performing art.

So that is my opinion and it is not ment to attack anyone's views just share my opinion, we should all take the time to consider these topics from each others side to better understand the discourse, when we do we are either set more solidly in our previous opinion now knowing the other side or we reconsider our viewpoint which gets us to a more authentic center of what we truly believe.
Matt

Ries

04-29-2006, 10:53 PM

This is not a perfect world.
The framers of the constitution might not like every thing we do today, but, frankly, we dont like everything they did- like slavery, or not allowing direct election of politicians, or suffrage for women..

Each of us feels the government "should" pay for some things and "absolutely shouldnt" pay for other things.
And the fact of the matter is that all of our opinions, including Navigator's, are just that- opinions.
The law of the land is decided by the elected officials.
If they decide we will have public art- well, we have it, and its legal. Like it or not. Think its wrong or not.

And right now, in many places, we have public art programs.
But as someone who probably makes about half his income from public art programs, I have to say there is a big difference between public art and "grants".

A grant, like the NEA used to give out to individual artists, is a no strings attached gift to you so you can spend your time making art.

A public art project is a job- real work delivered for the money spent. And in more and more cases, it is not a "turd on the plaza" style of freestanding sculpture that springs forth from the golden well of the artists divine imagination.
Nope, most of the time, the powers that be decide to kill two birds with one stone, and use the art budget for something they were going to have to pay for anyway- a floor, a window, a railing, a bench, a light fixture, a clock.
So the art is perhaps more expensive than the cheapest commercial alternative, but often cheaper than the higher end commercial alternatives.

For instance, if you go to a straight lighting manufacturer, and commission a 20 foot diameter commercial quality chandelier for the atrium of a sports arena, chances are, you are gonna spend more money than what they paid my friend Linda Beaumont to make her amazing piece for the Safeco Field in Seattle.
I know that many of the pieces I do, like fences, or railings, are totally cost competitive with "non-art" ornamental iron.

So far from wasting tax dollars, in many cases 1% projects actually save tax money.
Unlike a contractor, a public artist is NEVER allowed to make a change order, and bill for it. I have worked on jobs where the contractor bids low, then puts in literally MILLIONS of dollars in change orders. This simply doesnt work for most public artists. Oh, Vito Acconci gets away with it, and maybe Dennis Oppenheimer, (rhymes with wiesenheimer- or maybe it rhymes with lapdog) but most of us are nailed to the wall by our contracts- if you lose money on a project, thats your fault.

All the public art projects I work on are run just like any other government contract- the money is there, the job is advertised, and if I dont apply, somebody else will.
The question of what the government spends its money on is decided upon by politicians. But once they do decide to spend the money, I am no different from Boeing, or Halliburton, or Old Ross Perot and EDS- I bid on the job, and if I get it, I deliver what I was contracted to build.
I got no guilt about that- I know I give a lot more value, with no kickbacks, bribes, or shoddy workmanship.