From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Nea = education *3*
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:48:03 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <713514203.1@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:
>NEA is Education, Education is NEA.  Now repeat this with me class! [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

So, before NEA there was *no* education. :-)

>
>    Mr. Perez on Self-esteem:
>
>>An artist who supports himself has already earned his chance to try to
>>create art. Whether he succeeds or fails, he has learned something, and
>>has already paid for his chance. An artist who accepts a grant, even a
>>private one, did not earn the grant and must succeed in satisfying that
>>grant's reason for being to earn it. This is rather easy to do with a
>>private grant. A private party (individual, foundation or whoever)
>>either earns its own money or gets it from those who sanction its
>>purpose. The receiving artist can then see that he has the approval of
>>those who earned the grant money, which is how he earns it himself.
>>With the NEA, though, this cannot be. The people who determine the
>>purposes of NEA grants did not earn the grant money. That money is
>>taxed from private citizens whose control over the NEA is so diluted
>>that they cannot be said to have much control over where the money goes
>>at all. An NEA grant recipient cannot earn the money from them, and,
>>by depending on money he cannot earn, undercuts his self-confidence.
>
>>An artist who depends on government grants risks his self-esteem. An artist
>>who supports himself does not.
>
>Me:
>
>You completely missed the point.  I was speaking of how it helps children gain self-esteem & teach problem solving.  Earn?  How about we as a society teach it to them so they can learn how to EARN it!   Risk self-esteem? Nope. Afraid not.  It often comes down to need the help or no work can be created.  If the NEA is run as should be (please see below) then no problem-o.

I was talking about the artist herself. You are now talking about public
education. Do you think education should be public? That's another
discussion.

"Afraid not" is not any sort of refutation. Your next statement says
that many works cannot exist w/out NEA grants. Should they?

If a work cannot be created without some sort of public assistance, why
should it be created at all? Maybe I am mistaken, but the tools of an
artist's trade are quite inexpensive (or are canvas, brushes and oil
paints, for example, beyond the reach of most people?). The other
component and artist needs is time. Does an artist really need so much
time that he cannot take a "day job"? If an artist cannot support
himself and still create art, I would doubt his dedication.

>
>Oh the issue of cost?:
>
>Me:
>>If more young people had it then we would have less of our social ills. The arts have been & will continnue to be a positive outlet for those who are in such a desperate need for a better way.   So why not encourage the arts?  For a whopping 68 to 70 cents a year, the NEA does this.

If this is so, why hasn't *my* life been changed because of art created
under the auspices of the NEA? Why don't *I* know someone whose life has
been changed by the NEA? To have any effect, to affect those in need of
a better way, you have to go WHERE THEY ARE. If the man on the street
doesn't know what the NEA has to do with him, this is not being
accomplished.

>
>You:
>At what price? See above.
>
>Me:
>
>At what cost, oh you know, "NO PAIN NO GAIN!" --- for 68 to 70 cents we make available creative outlets to many people, not destructive outlets.

No, how much pain to how much gain? Self-flagellation is not the way to
physical fitness, and even a good exercise program can be overdone.

>
>Me again:
>>    I am not going to pretend that there is no politics or "string pulling" done by some to get grants, but you are gravely unfair & inaccurate in saying that is how it all works.   Many grants *DO* weigh out what positive qualities a project will bring.  I have seen the NEA form, it leaves little room for the "grantmanship" of which you speak.
>
>You:
>Perhaps I spoke too soon. I do have an inherent distrust of any grant program administered by career bureaucrats.
>
>My response:
>
>So do I if they won't leave it alone.  The whole idea is to set it in motion and let it work.  It has until Helms & his fundy right-wing hordes went on the attack.

Bureaucrats *never* end up leaving it alone. They have a vested interest
not to "rock the boat", and the political boat is always changing course.

>
> ALSO-
> Please allow me to include this little tidbit:
>
>  Albert Elsen, art historian, explains that in 1965 Congress passed into law The Declaration of Purpose for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities Act so that government would stimulate creativity. Part of it even states: "It is necessary and approriate for the federal government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination and inquiry, but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent."

Because Congress passed a declaration doesn't make it true. I continue to
assert that "release of creative talent" without the discipline self-
sufficiency is of dubious value.

>   Art is in every facet of your life.  Who designed your house? the chair your sitting in?  Great creativity is one of the characteristics that use to give this country a great advantage over others.... now well it is too busy being distracted by the fundy right about a few Mapplethorpe photos, which the liberal taxpayer alone paid enough taxes to the arts to cover that cost & the Serrano grant (both being about 35,000 dollars).  If you want to save money cut out waste & start at the top, the milita

Does subsidizing "creativity" encourage its development or does it
actually encourage laziness? If you can be supported by public grants,
why support yourself?

>other governemnt waste
>
>Me before & still:
>
>>           I & many like me also pay taxes, we feel quite good about our 70 pennies a year.
>
>You again:
>
>I don't, and not primarily because they were forced from me. It's because the net good they do does not match the fact that they were taxed away from me. See above.
>
>Me:
>
>You see above!

See above for my refutations of your above.

>
>Me some more:
>>                           Go Gators, the real Oranage & Blue!
>>
>>                 Thank you,
>>                              Mark Sablow
>>                              aka, Professor Atget
>>
>>  "Inside every conservative, is a Liberal, just waiting to escape."
>
>You:
>
>Classical liberal, maybe.
>
>My final response:
>
>Classical, oh please, don't do this to me.  I am the last of a dying breed. Don't add additional labels to me, as it is Reagan/Bush/Quayle & the narrow minded pea-brains like him would have you believe I'm a commie!

Oh. Pardon me for speaking for myself. Your quoted text presumes to speak
for everyone, including me.

>
> "Liberal, Schmiberal!, or as my father would say: "I am not a Liberal, I am a Left-winger"!
>
>                                                        Not bad from a man who turns 72 this coming August 13th.
>      In fact, I'm gonna inject some of his philosphies in the future, like his quote on Reagan: "A silly old man with beautiful hair".

Some philosophy it is - the viewpoint of "Ad Hominem". BTW, you are the
one who said that quote was a sample of a philosophy, not your father.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.censorship