From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *3*
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:55:45 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:

First things first Mark, please use line-feeds.  It may look fine to
you, but it plays hell with some of us who do not have your particualr
configuration.

>    You are still mistaken in regards of NEA funding.  It plays 
> a vital role in creating an environment that is much more open to learning.
> It cost so little, to cut it is not the answer to balancing a budget.  
> It does not represent the waste of government that you mention.
 
I never claimed it was a waste, just something which we cannot afford
right now -- a luxury a surplus would fund nicely.  I never said cutting
it would balance the budget, I just question funding such things in the
face of such large deficits.

> The arts are not just a "niceties" to have around.
> They are a chance to reach out to a child, a moment to communicate a
> problem in society in a unique manner.....
 
And the arts wouldn't still exist if not for NEA funding?  Bosh.  Artist
who want to reach out to children could still do so, volunteering time
to teach children is such a wonderful thing.  Many studies show that
paying people to do things they'd like to do anyway eventually causes
them to dislike the activity and do only what is necessary to satisfy
the paying supporter (employer, in this case the NEA).  Is that what you
want?  Art only good enough to please the NEA, not art that is as good
as it can be?

>    If you have ever seen the photographs of people with AIDS by a
> photographer named Nixon then you will have seen the problem in a way that
> words or other images could explain.
 
I suspect Nixon would have been moved to take the photos regardless of
whether he was NEA funded or not, or that he could have been funded by
ACT-UP or other gay-rights or PWA-rights groups.  He's an artist after
all.  He must get some intrinsic personal benefit from his work.  And
gallaries would have been stupid to not display them if they are as
compelling as you indicate.  The NEA funding facilitates such things,
but it's not the _reason_ or the driving force behind such things --
great art will always exist, with or without government funding.
And I'm not talking about cutting blindly.  I firmly believe that art
has always existed and will always exist because artists love what they
do, and people enjoy what artists do enough to pay for the priviledge.
I maintain that the NEA funds works of three sorts: those which attract
enough attention to be self-funding (e.g., symphony orchestras);  those
which aren't attractive to many people, and therefore cannot support the
artist; and those which would be created with or without NEA funding.
I also contend that those in the first group don't need NEA funding,
that those in the third group also don't need funding, and that much of
the second group overlaps the third group.  Ergo, the NEA is simply
facilitating that which would be done anyway!

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)