SD cuts all arts funding

[iowasculptor]

just announced today, south dakota has decided to cut ALL budget lines that support the arts in south dakota. No support for arts councils, no grants, no artists in schools, nothing. To say that the budget for the arts was adequate was an overestimation at best. South Dakota has not ever had an active percent for arts program and has operated a meager budget that allows local arts councils to host 1-2 arts events a year. This also takes all moneys away for support of art museums in the state as well. Many of the smaller schools have depended on grant money to bring in a visiting artist to teach their "art" program to the students as most do not have the budgets to hire an art teacher, these small rural communities also don't have funds to have an art center. So the void begins, and the dumbing down of the cultural awareness continues.
matt

[evaldart]

Dont matter. Its you against the world (against your culture) as it always was. Shouldn't change your plans one bit.

[iowasculptor]

It doesn't at all, keeping the plans on the down low for now. Just wish people would wake up and see that life is more than finances and survival.
matt

[Aaron Schroeder]

Hear that GlennT, a progressive state.

[evaldart]

Exaxtly Matt, finances and survival are the "regularities, the non-exceptional trifling, the daily ordeals. As artist we must be "super" enough to accomplish these feedings AS WELL AS the ever disuaded advancements into territories of personal illumination. Society, culture, career...all coddle and contain by their crippling permissions.
If South Dakota decides they dont want any Art, then move to NYC...Artists there dont need any damned programs or percents to prop them up because everyone is buying Art all the time.

[GlennT]

It is not necessarily true that "South Dakota decides it doesn't want art". Rather, they decided that the government cannot afford to meddle in that arena with the taxpayer's money.

I have been working for 20 years creating art with approximately zero involvement with any government-funded projects. What that means is that in addition to being an artist I also have to be an educator, helping clients or potential clients realize the value in THEIR supporting the arts. That process has allowed my vision to prevail by virtue of its merits rather than being constricted by the limited thinking of a prospectus clouded by the politics of the day.

[Portoro]

Just wish people would wake up and see that life is more than finances and survival.
matt

Yes, and that's why the funding is important.

As for eduation, in the UK the government has swung the schools and university agendas away from the arts and towards the accumulation of business acumen and skills. So, a world of well-educated cultural morons. We need to FUND what we love here. It won't work if it's 'just us against the world'.

[evaldart]

Yes, and that's why the funding is important.

As for eduation, in the UK the government has swung the schools and university agendas away from the arts and towards the accumulation of business acumen and skills. So, a world of well-educated cultural morons. We need to FUND what we love here. It won't work if it's 'just us against the world'.

What wont work...humanity? Big surprise, dont align yourself there-in or you're finished. If the artists lead by example and demonstrate achieved profundities that have nothing to do with just eating and staying warm, individuals will prosper. Sustaining resources will become secondary, less in demand, the proper amount for everyone. Enrichened lives serve humanity better than sufficed lives. The (intellectual) wealth will get spread by intellectual flourishing. And that begins with the elevating of aesthetics to the primary function of existence. Crouch under a tree in the rain and wonder about the shape of its trunk and how you might re-interpret its girth with an axe or a chainsaw. Down the road, these thought will remain yielding, other thoughts just get chewed-up and swallowed, and...well you know the rest.

[Portoro]

These are profound thoughts, and inspiring ones, Evaldart - but I can't give up on humanity, I just can't. It would be like giving up on myself too somehow. It's naive, old fashioned religion working in me perhaps, it's the communism, it's the belief that all can be right, or if not, repaired....somehow. Art and aesthetics can be open to a lot more people than currently access them and their importance - I still say fund that.

[GlennT]

Art and aesthetics can be open to a lot more people than currently access them and their importance - I still say fund that.

I think a lot of the blame, if you are going to lay any, on the declining interest in public funding for arts, is that there has been such a plethora of sorry-looking works that have emerged from that process that its value is no longer perceived, and rightly so. That is not to say that great works have not also been produced by such means, its just the preponderance of bland or meaningless to anyone but the artist types of works do not inspire.

As evaldart hints at, you must make your own art experience relevant and produce works so compelling that the value is apparent. Trust "humanity" to respond to something worth responding to, and if the work is not filling the hungry need for an inspired aesthetic, why should it be supported with undeserved funding?

[Ries]

I think a lot of the blame, if you are going to lay any, on the declining interest in public funding for arts, is that there has been such a plethora of sorry-looking works that have emerged from that process that its value is no longer perceived, and rightly so.

The vast majority of public arts funding has ALWAYS gone to major museums, symphonies, ballet, opera, theater, and arts education for children.

A TINY amount of it goes to public art, which Glenn finds so offensive. Probably well below 1% of all public art monies, nationwide, go to individual artists to make public artwork.

So his logic is flawed- most people do not think that impressionists, or King Tut's tomb, or Bach, or Swan Lake, or trips to the museum for third graders, are "sorry looking".

Nope, the declining interest in public funding for the arts, IF SUCH A THING EXISTS- and I have seen no proof it does- is because we are broke.
And we are broke because Bush spent $10 Billion a month in Iraq, then gave away a Trillion to his Wall Street Buddies, while cutting taxes.

When you dont have money, you cut perceived luxuries first- and most people do think that classical music, or ballet, or Shakespeare, are more of a luxury than food stamps, or Medic One, or safe drinking water.

That said, its been proven in studies time and again that for every dollar spent on art, you get about one and a half times the impact, in jobs, boost to the economy, and so on, that you would for a tax cut of the same amount.
Art doesnt COST- IT PAYS.

And that isnt even beginning to describe the non-monetary, and, to my mind, more important positive affects of art.

[GlennT]

So his logic is flawed- most people do not think that impressionists, or King Tut's tomb, or Bach, or Swan Lake, or trips to the museum for third graders, are "sorry looking".


The mistake was not in my logic, it was in assuming we were discussing publicly funded sculpture projects. It is disingenous to link my comments to classic works in museums. If we were talking about museum funding, one would need to focus on controversial exhibits like Piss Christ and the cow dung madonna in order to seriously address my [point.

But I was not talking about museums. I think people take for granted the existence of museums. But something new commissioned with public dollars, placed in a public context of daily interaction like a downtown street, rather than where one expressly chooses to go for a specific art experience...that is what I am talking about. The percentage of arts budget is meaningless here. What matters is the cummulative effects of unispired art foisted upon on all of us.

How do you expect people to rally around more such expenditures if that is all they might expect to see as a result? Especially, as you point out, during a time of excessive money having being spent on such things preventing another 9-11 type of attack from occuring here in 8 years, preventing wall street scammers from having their private jets repossesed, or preventing labor unions from having to re-configure their manipulative and hurtful demands to reflect market realities.

[Ries]

just announced today, south dakota has decided to cut ALL budget lines that support the arts in south dakota. No support for arts councils, no grants, no artists in schools, nothing.

Seems pretty clear that this topic is about ALL art funding, not public art sculptures.

And ALL art funding is mostly musuems, opera, and so on.

So we are not discussing rallying people around spending money on "uninspired art"- we are talking about the current reality of public funding for the ARTS. And as I mentioned, only a tiny percentage of public funding goes to those horrid modern sculptures you hate so much.

Most of what is being cut is being cut from stuff people "take for granted", and that is exactly what IowaSculptor is reporting.
The stuff people take for granted is being cut.

I think thats a bad thing.

As I have said before, again and again, the VAST MAJORITY of public funding goes to very conservative, traditional art.
No public money has gone to Piss Christs in over 20 years.
Public money paid for the museum in Brooklyn in which Chris Offili's paintings were exhibited- but NO public money actually went to Offilli.
So the "elephant dung" argument is another of your straw men.

And the elephant dung paintings are beautiful, and inspiring, to me, even if no public money was actually spent on them. Every group show in a museum has a couple of pieces I personally dont like, but your logic that somehow a musuem should get no public funding if a group show includes art you dont like seems somewhat limiting to me.
Either we all pay for some stuff we dont like, like me paying for those crummy cops who give me speeding tickets, or we live in anarchy and lawlessness- because SOMEBODY doesnt want to pay for absolutely every element of government.

So if we let people veto public spending they personally dont like, there would be none left.

[GlennT]

your logic that somehow a musuem should get no public funding if a group show includes art you dont like seems somewhat limiting to me.

The incidents in question were not effected by what I like, nor is that my argument. The incidents I mention were found to be intentionally and expressly offensive to a large group of people, primarily those who honor Jesus or Mother Mary. The public, not I, reacted loudly and negatively to these exhibits. To say that my point is about art that I don't like is the type of straw man argument that you accuse me of making.

Art that has at its core an intention to court controvery by attacking or being extremely disrespectful to the majority of its viewers is art that I question as being worthy of recieving funding from the public that is disturbed by it.

That does not mean it should be censored, just that its funding should be coming from those who support using art primarily to promote their own politics.
And I'm not sure how funding for constitutionally mandated, basic, proper functions of government such as defense and public infrastructure has any bearing on funding non-mandated non-essentials.

The larger point that I hope you are not missing here, is that such projects, while having caused short term noteriety for the artists, have had the cummulative effect of creating a public distaste for public money supporting the arts, whether deserved or not. Even if such projects no longer happen, the sour memory lingers. These artists and the curators have made themselves very poor ambassabors for furthering the cause of public funding of the arts. It is too bad that such behavior drags down the rest of the positive areas of public art funding.

[craigktx]

i wonder now what art is being shown at these museums.
iam in a black hole here so what are the Warhol machine type works being shown at the museums now?

[Ries]

Since the artist, Chris Ofili, is a practicing Roman Catholic, he would have to be included in your group of people who "honor Jesus and Mother Mary".
And, obviously, he did not find the painting offensive.

My point being, opinions differ.

My opinion, which is seemingly reflected by the majority of New Yorkers, as the Brooklyn Musuem is STILL publicly funded, is that the painting in question has a place in publicly funded exhibitions.

Again, you are focusing on one sensationalistic event that took place in 1999, which is NOT representative of 99% of public funding of arts, and is certainly not representative of public art funding in South Dakota.

I suggest you read this exhaustive analysis of the Ofili painting, written by a Jesuit Priest, in which he one by one takes apart the criticisms of the painting, and reveals them for the silly tabloid shouts for attention they are.
If you actually look at the painting, and then read this article, there is a lot less scandal there than the right wing radio talk show hosts would like us to believe.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_8_36/ai_58360850
In fact, he uses the Ofili painting, and the issues it raises, to reflect on his and our own compassion, faith, and hypocrisy.
Interesting stuff.

Ofili is a serious, thoughtful and skilled artist, who has consistently painted beautiful, yet challenging paintings, which I would proudly hang in my house if only I could afford them.

[Ries]

To bring this back to reality, here is a link to the actual South Dakota Arts that were funded last year-
http://www.artscouncil.sd.gov/about/08annualrpt.pdf

No Piss Christs, no elephant dung, no lesbian performance art- Instead, what they are cutting is stuff like -

Swiss Choral Society
South Dakota Symphony Orchestra
Black Hills Playhouse
Singing Boys of Sioux Falls
South Dakota Friends of Traditional Music

and grants like $240 to Madison Elementary School.

They also gave $17,000 to the South Dakota Art Musuem.
Which hosted such insidious and transgressive shows as:
Harvey Dunn - realistic paintings of South Dakota from 1902 to 1950
Landscapes by Jenny Braig- http://www.iowa-artisans-gallery.com/artists/2d/jennybraig.html
Glass sculpture by Stephen Knapp- http://www.lightpaintings.com/
and shows of South Dakota woodworking, and embroidered linen flowers from Madeira.

Scary stuff.

This is what public funding of the arts really is.
Not Offili and Serrano.

[GlennT]

No Piss Christs, no elephant dung, no lesbian performance art- Instead, what they are cutting is stuff like -

Swiss Choral Society
South Dakota Symphony Orchestra
Black Hills Playhouse
Singing Boys of Sioux Falls
South Dakota Friends of Traditional Music

This is what public funding of the arts really is.
Not Offili and Serrano.

So, what we may have learned is that when the pendulum swings too far to the left, the laws of physics tell us that it will swing back too far to the right, and in both instances it is the people in the middle who suffer.

[Ries]

Glenn, you arent seriously trying to say that because, in 1990, the NEA gave a grant to the South Eastern Center for Contemporary Art, a small portion of which was used to fund an Andre Serrano Show, the result is that NOW, 18 years later, South Dakota cuts funding to boys choirs in retaliation?

Sorry, the pendulum NEVER swung to the left- the grant was revoked 18 years ago.

The current cuts have NOTHING to do with your silly idea that the american public is fed up with radical art- Its all about being broke, as I said before.

No backlash against modern art occurred in South Dakota, and, in fact, despite the best efforts of people like the Rev. Donald Wildmon or that hack, Dana Rohrbacker, there has not been a backlash against modern art by the american people. Or against arts funding.

You are inventing one, but it never happened.

Most people believe in funding the stuff that government arts programs fund, like the stuff that is being cut in South Dakota.

Arts funding is being cut because EVERYTHING is being cut, because, in the last 8 years, we spent a lot more money than we have. We gave away a few hundred billion here, and a few hundred billion there, to Halliburton and Wall Street and AIG, and suddenly, our economy is in the toilet- surprise, surprise, surprise, as old Gomer Pyle used to say.

It has nothing to do with the american people suddenly seeing the light and coming around to your taste in art, much as you would like to hope it did.

[GlennT]

Alright, let's go with that then. It covers at least half the truth, and avoids having to face responsibility for the other half.

As far as the American people coming around to my taste in art, I have never claimed that to have occured, nor stated that as being my goal, good idea though it may be. Making up things like that in order to paint a false and unappealing picture of me does not advance your arguement, it only weakens your credibility despite the good points you make.

Again, the claim that I am making, is that when various incidents, many more than one or two isolated examples, occur in which government funding of arts results in "in your face" types of projects, or even just distinctly unappealing ones, the tastes of the American public, irrespective of any congruence with my own personal tastes, is turned off from the idea of having its money so wasted. Thus, albeit the current situation is propelled by an economic downturn, public support for government funding of the arts has lost campaigners on its behalf who have been so alienated.

[Ries]

If that is true, then why has government support for the arts increased every year, until this year?

Each year, more and more dollars have been spent on art.
More states and cities have adopted 1% for arts laws.
More states and cities have instituted artists in the schools programs, outdoor concerts, festivals, and so on.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the public, which, after all, elects the politicians that have been consistently funding MORE art, not less, has changed its mind as you state.

Please, what is your proof that public support for government funding has decreased? All evidence I can see, that is, actual spending, passing of laws, and so on, would tell me that, until last September, when extraordinary times hit us, the public has consistently supported MORE spending.

Which politicians were voted out of office based on spending more on arts?
Which grass roots state initiatives have been passed cutting arts spending?
Which petitions have been sent to politicians demanding less spending on arts?

[GlennT]

Okay, then, it's all good: once the economic downturn blows over you should have no trouble rallying the citizens to re-establish their right to pay the government more money for the government to spend on the arts.

[EJB]

I don't usually chime in on the political discussions here because they tend not to be productive. In this case I think it is important to back up Ries who is spot on regarding public art funding. The disconnect is when people rely on news headlines and emotional knee-jerk reactions to base their opinions on. Very, very little public money goes to 'controversial' art. Even most of that is merely hype of media outlets, church groups and just plain angry people that often have no first hand knowledge of the projects but use them to advance their own agendas. If the real fear is that someone may undeservingly receive taxpayer dollars for something useless, well there is a mighty long list of expenditures that have nothing to do with art whatsoever. When talking about cutting funding for the arts, you might as well say you are cutting funds for education since that is what it amounts to. A number of arts programs have evolved in order to fill the void created by the systematic elimination of arts, music and athletic programs in public schools in an effort to 'trim costs'. The argument is usually that outside organizations can pick up the slack and government can save a ton of money by merely subsidizing as opposed to running the programs themselves. Of course the short term relief in spending is offset by using the savings to hire more administrators and implement more testing. As more kids get frustrated and drop out of school, school funding based on attendance also declines and the cycle progresses. But no one wants to close down schools to save money do they? (Well, except for the school for the deaf that the SD governor wants to shut down).
In the case of South Dakota, they undoubtedly face severe budget shortfalls as do many government agencies and individuals do at the moment. This is why this subject is relevant to this forum. Budget cuts that affect your communities may be next. As an artist I have not and have no plans to apply for a government art grant. As a taxpayer I fully endorse supporting public art programs because it makes for a better community and better citizenry. The reason I got into this biz was a firm commitment to quality of life. Arts organizations are major tools in revitalizing depressed areas and exposing the public to ideas and forms of expression that might not otherwise be available to them. As Ries stated, art is a money maker! South Dakota has been the beneficiary of one of the largest public art works in American history which brings millions of tourist dollars every year. Before Mount Rushmore, South Dakota's biggest claim to fame was not being North Dakota. Granted, government oversight hamstringed that project through most of its existence but now is considered a National Treasure. (Unless you happen to be Lakota). By the way, the original proposal (by a government official) was to carve cowboy and indian figures out of the nearby rock formations (which are now considered a National Treasure). Another example of why I agree that you do not want an unwieldy bureaucracy dictating what is and is not art. Public art funding is the mechanism by which citizens dictate the course of their culture.
To the best of my knowledge the SD budget cuts have yet to be voted on. The Arts budget is less than $700,000. Perhaps a more 'creative' solution will be arrived at before all is said and done.

[sculptorsam]

Very well said, EJB. And I second the +1 Ries.

[outsider]

Government funding of the arts is the same as children having to eat their vegetables. It's all nourishment. Sometimes it gets down to almost being force fed. Art precedes life. You must feed art to obtain richness later. Maybe I'll be a shining example of such when my teleportation machine becomes common place.

http://www.y-16.com

[Andrew Werby]

GlennT wrote:

...the claim that I am making, is that when various incidents, many more than one or two isolated examples, occur in which government funding of arts results in "in your face" types of projects, or even just distinctly unappealing ones, the tastes of the American public, irrespective of any congruence with my own personal tastes, is turned off from the idea of having its money so wasted. Thus, albeit the current situation is propelled by an economic downturn, public support for government funding of the arts has lost campaigners on its behalf who have been so alienated.[/QUOTE]

[Actually, the process that most governmental agencies go through to commission public art produces artworks of extreme blandness, not "in your face" art at all. That's why we are still hearing about Ofilli, Serrano and Mapplethorpe after all these years - there aren't any actual examples of recent public sculpture that would make Glenn's point for him. The aforementioned "gang of three", of course, never created any taxpayer sponsored public art; the controversy was whipped up around the mere showing of their work in institutions which received some degree of public funding.

Instead, if you look at actual Calls for Art you'll generally find specifications like these (culled from actual announcements):

"that the art "reflects the values of a free public library and stands as an icon to welcome all patrons" or

"work to complement theme, "Gateway to Idaho's Wilderness," commemorate
Lewis Clark journey, role the Nez Perce Tribe played in their
success, some of the plants and animals important to these
groups." or

"for monument, preferably of local stone, to Henry David
Thoreau, the Wabanakis and ancient route they followed through
woods of northern Maine." or

"monument to police killed in line of duty"

This is understandable when one considers that most of these opportunities for public sculpture arise from the construction of a new police station, library, courthouse, parking garage or some other building project covered by a "percent for art" statute. They hardly ever call upon artists to confront viewers with a new and different vision of what art's about, let alone challenge established notions of public decency. Instead, you see more and more requests for "work that's not “obscene, offensive, unsigned . . . or otherwise deemed inappropriate.”

Public art commissions are mostly judged by the artist's ability to concoct an essay explaining how their piece will achieve the project's non art-related thematic requirements while spreading social harmony, civic pride, and tourism-fueled prosperity throughout the community. Of course a good rendering and a resume stocked with previously completed non-controversial projects of a similar nature helps a lot too. Then various committees of politicians, bureaucrats, and community groups all get to weigh in with their stipulations - is it any wonder that the results are "unappealing"?

I wonder what public art piece in particular so alienated GlennT that he ceased to be the effective campaigner for public art in general that he certainly could be, and instead feels compelled to applaud the craven officials who court the know-nothing vote with draconian anti-art measures like those just adopted in North Dakota. It seems sad that even here, amongst ourselves, we can't agree that funding the arts is a good thing, well worth the relative pittance we spend on it. If even artists can't unite behind that principle, it seems unlikely that we'll be able to convince the public at large, who due to actions like this are increasingly ignorant of art's history, techniques, and function in society and take as gospel the anti-art sound-bites fed to them by the corporate media.

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com

[GlennT]

The "in your face" goofballs are only part of the picture, as I explained early on. Sorting through some per cent for art sculpture images which had file sizes small enough to show here, I have in a few minutes come up with five representations below to illustrate the other part of my point. That is the bland to ugly government funded works, meaningful mainly to the artist but usually not too many other people, that have graced our environment.

I will try to put my thoughts in a positive way: We sculptors need to do our best, and better, to create inspiring works that will motivate public support for our work being placed in public places. This would involve a different approach than coming up with what was illustrated below.

Even those projects with the nice titles listed by Andrew Werby can end up turning out bland work because the process itself may discourage some of our more talented sculptors from competing.

Back in the late 19th and early 20th century, large scale sculptures were often awarded to the finest sculptors in America because the committees involved did the research or hired a well-respected artist to create a short list of artists solicited, who were paid a nominal fee to submit models. The sculptors selected had already been vetted by virtue of their proven professional practice. The committee selected the best work from among these on the basis of the models. Sometimes a talented young apprentice, encouraged by a famous sculptor to participate, would win in this manner. Thus the mastery displayed in the model, not a resume or application tailored to play a game with the lanquage of the RFP, gave a solid basis for selecting the best qualified artist.

The random sampling in the photos shown below can hardly be called inspired or inspiring.

What I am saying, is that we can and should do better, so that rather than becoming another piece of visual noise, our works give people pause to consider, and choose to feel good about their city because of the fine quality of public art. Then it will be more apparent that public funding of art is a good return on the investment.

None of the above is directed at the cultural institutions such as museums and performing arts venues that maintain our cultural heritage, which do need and generally deserve the continued support.

[craigktx]

i like the first and forth ones to each his/her own i guess.
theres nothing wrong with fun art.

[Portoro]

... and produce works so compelling that the value is apparent.....

Thanks for stating this - I must keep it in mind.

Re: Post 27. Must say, I like some of this work - eclectic, humourous. I personally like serious, more austere public works, but some of this work here shows a playful love of form and a serious attempt by the artist to connect to specific audiences. I also suspect that the principles of choosing public sculptures has changed. I grew up in an age when public works were meant to be almost educational, edifying at least. Now I see a lot of work that, whilst being visually interesting for the 'serious' artist/viewer, also sets out to recognise the 'average guy' who walks through the park (no condescension intended). The visual eclecticism in some of the works above key into a wider range of experiences, and the styles and techniques are clearly of a wider visual frame. That may actually be good - less elitist, less like 'talking down' to an audience.

I also don't see anything here that doesn't demonstrate the artist's pretty profound understanding of form.

[iowasculptor]

with respect to all who have commented, the fact that SD is considering cutting the arts funding has nothing to do with what art has been funded through those moneys. The reason is in my opinion is that there have been hard financial times, yes... but the arts community has been very complacent for years, not showing decision makers why the arts are important, allowing the state to cut visual arts from the elementary, middle, and secondary educational system. This also fosters a systemic problem with people who have no formal experience with art, its not part of their environment, its not something they ever think about. In SD the majority of money goes to the performing arts, this can be directly attributed to the fact that nearly every school in the state has a band program. Students, and families are brought up learning an instrument, going to performances, etc... In my opinion the arts community has been too quiet, taking what comes, and now this comes. We have to make art relevant, why should students be taught art? What value does it have? how do the arts impact the economy in general? These things are things that artists have failed to do, musicians understand it, they band together to save their programs in the schools, but who bands together to save visual arts, usually a handful of parents and the teacher. If we don't fight for things we will get what we deserve.
matt

[GlennT]

Matt, I agree with what you have written. But I would not dismiss the relevence of what has been funded. That is part of why I have come down hard on what appears to me as frivolous, silly, "fun" public art that is devoid of depth. As Portor points out, public art used to be "educating, edifying at least". When it becomes ephemeral like the examples I showed, then the value is not grasped. It does not move people. Goals are satisfied by scoring a quick point and moving on to the next thing. That in my opinion breeds disinterest and consequent lack of support.

It is not enough to take one of these elements and either try to lay the blame entirely on it, or dismiss it as a factor because the real reason is ___.
All of these things come together in various ways to create a mindset that makes it more difficult to the champion the cause of art in public places.

[evaldart]

The band is necessary for the football team, so music gets funded (and only very few of those horn blowers are artists)...its that simple. Fine Art is not supported because it is not viewed as a viable career path...its that simple.
People become real artists because they MUST, and no lack of funding is gonna stop them. You cant permit or enable an artist...they are already plenty enabled by their will.
So the government can keep their pittances...there are wealths abounding that committees and beaurocrats cannot ever comprehend.

[Portoro]

You cant permit or enable an artist...

But you can! In fact, there's no other way! No-one is born an artist (or anything else). You get switched on at some point, to whatever engrosses you. My art teacher did it for me (he was funded by the local education authority), and I see no reason why a multitude of others might not follow the same route as me if they are invited to do so.

[StevenW]

Well, according to the WSJ's analysis of the 900B pork bailout, 50 mil will go to the NEA..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

If you check out the NEA grant structure you'll notice quickly that almost nothing goes to Art (as I know it) in terms of sculpture, painting etc.. And virtually all of it goes to poetry readings and square dancing. A mere 1.2 mil to various museums and the promotions of real exhibits.

http://arts.endow.gov/grants/recent/index.html

When we mix government with art what we get is neither. Instead we get bureaucracy and red-checkered table cloth.

[evaldart]

Get that unreadable mile of crap off. This is not Town hall, Shitsville, SD. There are plenty of places for artists to flourish...if you dont like where you are...go to where you'll be appreciated. NOTHING is tying any of us down.

[Aaron Schroeder]

50 million to the nea is next to nothing. It takes 150 mill just to make a feature film. We're talking 60 cents per american citizen. Good luck getting a red checkered table cloth for that.

Dumping huge dollars into the arts would be good for the economy. Few can stretch a dollar and spend their money wisely like Artist.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

[GlennT]

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

The silent wheel moves faster and gets things done.

[Aaron Schroeder]

The frozen wheel is also silent and gets nothing done.

[Ries]

Just to put it in perspective- an additional $50,000,000 for the NEA is equal to what we are spending every 4 HOURS on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not on the US military as a whole, just on the war.

Its probably around what we spend every couple of hours, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, on total military and security spending.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Back in the eighties, the military marching band was getting 400 million and they deserved it.

GlennT would be an excellent steward of the peoples money, he'd spend it right, do awesome work, create a good reason to visit his local, contribute to commerce and help lay the foundations for a sustainable economy in his region. He'd speak for his people. Will he do it ? Will he step up to bat ? Take on a leadership role ? Get the people behind him ? Do something big ? Get us all involved ? Ask us all for help ?

Supporting road building and the agencies to defend them is all well and good if there is a destination that satisfies folks on the end ( good food, accomodations, entertainment, utility ) but if there's nothing there, it's just another road to nowhere.

Access to the arts justifies all other expenditures. People work for reward which just happens to be the finer things in life. What does that look like ?
The arts, the luxuries, the fine stuff, the stuff that feeds the six senses with pleasure. Take away that and what do you have ? A world of very unhappy women, children and men. Who wants that ?

For the cost of one nuclear submarine ( per year )we could totally reward the people with pleasures they've never known before. We could inform and entertain, reward, and families would be truelly greatful !!!!

If corporate America could do it all, that would be great !!!! Will they do it all ? Come on.

So I ask every American to contribute five bucks to the NEA's budget per year, the price of a Subway Sandwhich, is that so horrible? I guess that's outrageous. Way out of line. 60 cents was bad enough.

Folks seem so gung ho on going into debt to scare and intimidate the rest of the world, imagine what we could do if we spent our money on making friends.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking that the women and children would be into that.

Giving up a sandwhich, I guess that's asking to much, so wrong.

[StevenW]

oky doky.. Just to put all this war in Iraq nonsense in to perspective.. 15 bil/month, which is in all reality 1 bil a month difference if we weren't at war (soldiers get paid one way or another) is chump change in comparison to the 900 billion in payoff money to the crack dealers bummer promised would contain no earmarks and said he would veto if it did. As far as I can tell it's almost all pork, (30% according to most) which makes bummer a liar in my book. I admit that I have no idea what we spent taking down Japan and Germany in WWII, but the result of that effort paved the way for 50 years of prosperity in the tens of trillions net gain conservatively for every country involved and sparked a wave of prosperity and growth the world has never known before or since. Granted, war is a terrible thing and it's too bad it seems that this is what it took to bring a world out of depression. History has shown the new deal did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy any more than buying that new stereo on your credit card made you a richer person.

I agree, 50 mil is chump change, but I don't agree that it will go anywhere useful anyway, be it 50 mil or 50 bil. It's all payoff money to the crooks and if it were 50 bil you still wouldn't get your checkered table cloth, so there. :) It would all be sucked up in "administrative" fees... I can't begin to describe how many "non-profit" organizations I've seen sink their claws in to the govt. and suck us dry as their administrators drive new Lexus's and live in million plus homes and communities. This pork charade is a huge farce that has brought us one irrevocable step closer to being a socialist country modeled after Europe. Your kids will be serfs..

[Aaron Schroeder]

I've been in the Art Trenches, working with non-profits on a shoe string budget, taking art to the run down zones, the people who need it the most. Fighting the good fight. Where ever artist go, enabled by a few government dollars, they do great work and lay the foundation for all the weak ones to follow. Artist break ground when every one else is to chicken shit to do so. Artist honor tax dollars like no others, do you think otherwise ?

The best thing that SD could do is increase their arts spending ten fold, twenty fold, a hundred fold. If SD wants to make money they'll spend their tax dollars on the Arts. It's a proven fact, investing in the arts makes money.
Doing otherwise is just plain stupid.

[StevenW]

investing in the arts makes money.
Doing otherwise is just plain stupid.


Well I rest my case.. 50 mil on Art and square dancing and 816,995.000,000.00 on pork... Hope and change,... yawn.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Yawn all you want. It's not about principles, it's about having the means to be in the schools, in the community centers, in the non-profits, on the streets, in the hood, face to face, making a difference, touching base, changing lives, bringing art to the people. Or perhaps you 'd rather see the art folks serving up fast food, making money the honest way.

Really, art's not going to happen in SD for everyday people unless something bigger than corporate takes charge. SD's a dead zone. The kids there aren't getting it and their people aren't going to make it happen. They're Americans, they should have the means just like the people in the vibrant zones. Spread the wealth where it is needed. Where it's not.

I have not heard a singal word from corporate in support of SD, not Microsoft, not Walmart, not GlennT, not anybody. That zone is dead. No reward. No happy girls, Moms, kids, anybody. No community that connects to the rest of the nation. Poor them.

The wheels are locked up, nothing's spinning, no reward, lame times. The artist in SD are ready to fight, take it to the streets, connect, working it, going to corporate, friends, family, everybody. Everybody's broke. Only big G can make a difference. Not going to happen. SD is doomed. Anyone who can move.....will......the rest will just suffer. Pity them.

[GlennT]

I have created hundreds of sculptures, murals, and paintings without ever having the government support me. In fact, despite earning just about enough to pay my bills and little else all this time, I have been supporting the government with my taxes rather than being able to spend that money to take a well deserved vacation, or otherwise invest in the US economy.

By my efforts and personal sacrifice, (such as earning about as much as a grocery store cashier in exchange for creating bronze sculpture of the highest standards) the public environment as well as private homes have been enriched with beautiful art. Sometimes I go into my wife's school, or a public school, or a VA hospital, and teach the children sculpture, drawing, or painting. I don't wait for a government check, I volunteer this. I painted a mural for a school for next to nothing, so that the children would have a beautiful and inspiring work of art to absorb each day.

If you want to make art happen, make art happen and stop whining about the government not helping. Maybe others will see what you can accomplish and will help support your efforts. Or maybe no one will give a damn about helping you, but you will have spent your life leaving a legacy of good works for others to enjoy, which will make it easier to leave this world with peace of mind when that time comes.

[jOe~]

It's not about principles And underneath it all lies the line that divides the greed of those for whom only their bottom line tolls v.s the joy of those for whom beauty and artistic joy reigns. Life is short, beauty v.s greed. Hope and change...for those who are awake.

[Ries]

More actual numbers.

the war costs at least $10 Billion a month.
The military budget, not counting the war, is another $500 Billion a year.
That is not counting a lot of "black" stuff we dont admit we spend money on- which is probably, according to most estimates, another couple of hundred billion a year.

So the war, at approx $120 billion, is about 1/6 the amount of what we spend on the military.

Its not 1 billion a month more, but 10.

As for the NEA- last year, 2008, the budget was $144 million, while last year, 2008, the military band budget was $155 million.

Seems pretty clear that oompah music is more worthy than Shakespeare.


As for Glenn, I applaud you on your volunteer work.

I, too, do that sort of thing all the time. I make art with kids, for free or sometimes materials reimbursement, at schools, and am quite proud of it.
I also sponsor tours of my studio by seniors, elementary school kids, college students, arts groups, blacksmithing groups, and more. I gave away a tour recently that got good money (beats me why) at a charity auction.

I regularly donate artwork to charity, for auctions, fundraisers, and the like. I give away artwork to regular folks from time to time, to, depending on the circumstances.

I also volunteer on public art juries, grants juries, selection panels, I go and speak at schools and universities, and I write letters to the editor.

All of this is well and good.

But beyond that, I, without the slightest twinge, write that check every year to the IRS for FIFTY CENTS to support the NEA.

(actually, my percentage of supporting the NEA is probably more like a buck and a half- after all, a lot of people dont pay taxes, so those of us who do shoulder a MUCH higher burden)

I am proud to send the equivalent of half a cup of starbucks coffee every year to the NEA. Heck, I would send a whole cup's worth, if there was a way to ensure that it didnt go to pay for the war.

(for which, the per capita US expense is something like $1750, each, but that leaves out the "black" stuff. If you use my multiplier, that is, that I pay more in taxes to make up for the kids, old folks on SS, and welfare queens, then that means I pay about a $1.50 for ART every year, and $4000+ on war and the military)

[StevenW]

Hmm, it's a good thing I got the buns stocked up Aaron so I can take a few moments to respond. :) I think Bush said recently he abandoned his principles to "save" the free market. A bit of a let-down from my perspective as for me it should have been a moment when he stuck to them. They chucked 600 bil at the banks (the one's they chose to survive) and let others fall and it has done nothing to fix the problem that started this mess to begin with. Now we're chucking 800 bil more at food stamps and welfare and std research and Acorn and birth control and other windfall profit "non-profits". They just don't call it profit as that has become a bad buzz word in our society, one associated with greed, which is an insulting notion to all those who strive to make this country a better place. They call their profits "administrative" fees and dodge taxes that way.

Much like Hirst is not representative of the typical sculptor, (I don't know any Hirst's on this website) yet is propped up by a false and hollow media as such, the overwhelming majority of corporate entities is not based upon greed, but rather a meager success. It is this false notion and so many others like it that the MSM props up and vigorously assaults us with on a daily basis that has led us to scrape up the candy falling from the Obama pinata called a stimulus plan.

Time to fill up the straws and napkins and ketchup's.. More later.. :)

[Aaron Schroeder]

There's private property, then there's public property. All things pertaining to public property involve government. If any kind of " Art " is going to happen on public property it is going to tax the people. The question is do we want art objects and events to happen in our public buildings and spaces ? How much art do we want on public property ? More or less ?

I don't " need " government money, I'm not whining for a hand out. What I want is to make public art for public spaces on public property because I'm a public artist. Without public support, that isn't going to happen for me or you or any artist. The public buys public art. Everything else is private property, off limits whenever any private agency says so. Locked behind doors, out of sight and out of mind. A selfish possession.

Public art on public property defines our culture. We spend trillions to defend it. How can any artist not care about that ?

[GlennT]

The public buys public art. Everything else is private property, off limits whenever any private agency says so. Locked behind doors, out of sight and out of mind. A selfish possession.

Public art on public property defines our culture.

That's good news, I thought Britney spears defines our culture.:rolleyes:

I get The sense that you don't mind the government gaining ever more property out of the "selfish possession" of private individuals and turning it over to the benevolent use of the public. (socialism) But I should point out that many private corporations also spend money on public art, that is to say, art that is every bit as accessible to the viewing public, but located on private property, such as in front of their buildings or in lobbies open to the public. Also, there are long lists of corporate and private donors who are the major benefactors of museums and other public institutions.

[jOe~]

I am absolutely--ADAMANTLY--against any tax funding for public education. What a complete waste of tax payers money. Public education has totally failed in its fundamental objectives--to teach people how to think. Why would you want that any way? Think of the huge savings to individuals. Also, the tax exempt status of churches must be revoked. Churches have failed in making people more peaceful. Imagine all the money the government would receive(further reducing tax payer obligations). That should make the penny pinching conservatives happy. They will get to hoard more of their precious loot and they will be even less exposed to intelligent thought. I also suggest they not involve themselves (even though it is free) with the irritating thought provoking discussions on this forum. Then they could better spend their time counting, admiring and worshiping their precious money. Maybe there should be a thread just for conservatives where they could brag about their latest materialistic acquisitions. How cool would that be. Their consumption would even be more conspicuous. That is what its all about isn't it--hoard and boast?

[GlennT]

Don't worry folks, jOe was just having a bad dream and sleepwalked to his computer and started typing. He'll wake up out of dopeysterotypeland any moment.

[StevenW]

Public art on public property defines our culture. We spend trillions to defend it. How can any artist not care about that ?


I care about it and of-course I want to see public sculpture and I have no qualms about local or state govt. funding it like they always have. I do have a problem with Federal funds being allocated to states though because that is not the way govt was designed and there is no representation or oversight like there was no oversight with freddie and fanny and as a result Barney Frank was allowed to sink the country. States fund memorials and parks and this, that and the other. Why not let the lottery fund these things like it was intended to do instead of being greedily sucked up by "administrative" costs? How many dolts does it take to hand out a lottery check once every few months anyway? 40% of the funds go to "administrators".. Crooks one-and-all Aaron and THAT is why I am againts the GOVT. deciding what should go where and not because of some "penny pinching" nonsense such as Joe is illustrating.

[Blacksun]

It is not necessarily true that "South Dakota decides it doesn't want art". Rather, they decided that the government cannot afford to meddle in that arena with the taxpayer's money.

I have been working for 20 years creating art with approximately zero involvement with any government-funded projects. What that means is that in addition to being an artist I also have to be an educator, helping clients or potential clients realize the value in THEIR supporting the arts. That process has allowed my vision to prevail by virtue of its merits rather than being constricted by the limited thinking of a prospectus clouded by the politics of the day.

Go Glenn, Could not have said it any better.