From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *3*
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:41:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.172031.27543@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>
>>grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>
>[I said people who are paid to do something tend to do it just well
>enough to get paid.  People who do the same activity without getting
>paid tend to find it more enjoyable, do it better, etc.]
>
>>1. Please cite at least one of these 'many studies', or even an article
>>which mentions these studies. Are these studies related to art in any way,
>>or are you just leaping to a conclusion based on studies done on, say,
>>those who like computers but then rebel against them when paid to program
>>them 40 hrs a week.
> 
>I happen to have a book at home, from which I derive this statement.
>Tonight, I'll reference the particular section and the bibliography.
>And from my personal experience, programming computers _is_ such an
>activity.  I think nothing of staying up all night trying to get
>something I'm writing for myself just right, but it's _much_ easier to
>kick off at quitting time from work's programming.  How many people love
>to read?  And how many of those same people hated literature classes
>where you were forced to read something you would have read anyway?  I
>know that fits me to a 'T'.


My point exactly. This is all true with computers, BUT does that make it
true for art? Probably not, I say.
>
>>2. No one is saying the arts wouldnt exist without the NEA. However, there
>>would be less access to this art by the general public, or even the
>>'cultural elite'. A lot of music that we buy here at UVA music library could
>>not have been published without government grants. This music could still
>>exist, but no one (or few people) besides the composer would even know it
>>existed, much less hear it. 
> 
>So this music isn't great enough to inspire people to play it without
>the government paying them to?  If it was inspiring, people would play
>it and want to listen to it.  If it's not any good, why should we pay
>for it?
>

Yes, its great enough. BUT due to economic conditions, something like
"Everything I do I do for You" or "Im too Sexy" will make money, while these
things will not. Popularity does not equal quality.

>>Plus, think of things like symphony orchestras.
>>Without government funding, most of these would either have to raise their
>>already high ticket prices, putting them even farther out of reach than they
>>already are, or shut down. Once again, this wouldnt make the music cease
>>to exist, but it would make it even more difficult, if not impossible, to
>>hear it performed live.
> 
>Ever heard of volunteer symphonies?  Granted, sine these people aren't
>payed to play their instruments full-time, they don;t sound quite as
>good as professional symphonies, but they are pleasant nonetheless.
>And they often have free concerts as well.  

The Charlottesville-University Symphony Orchestra IS volunteer. AND it
charges $12 a ticket. How much would they have to charge without UVA's
(= the governments) help? Remember, there are many many other expenses
involved in producing art than just paying the artist.

>
>>3. Considering that the military spends more money on its cheesy bands to
>>spew out Souza marches than the entire NEA budget, and also lets arms
>>contractors use US equipment free of charge to help advertise these weapons
>>(at a cost of $100s of millions), to name just two egregious abuses, I think
>>we can find better ways to save money. Our budget for this year is in the
>>trillions (to put it in perspective, 1 trillion is around 75 million times
>>my salary), and it wont get better by gutting the miniscule amount we spend
>>on arts.
>
>I agree with the abuses and agree they should be cut.  Nice to see your
>value judgements though -- ceesy bands, spew out...  I happen to like
>military bands _and_ Sousa marches, but do they need to be funded?
>Hardly.  If the military wants to promote a volunteer band that military
>personell comprise on their off-duty hours, that'd be great!
>
>>4. Isnt it amazing how this argument crops up on almost every newsgroup??
>
>Hmm, did I miss some crossposting in the headers?  nn doesn't give me
>the headers when I compose a followup.  I'll try to be more careful to
>keep it in appropriate groups.

No, i wasnt saying this was inappropriate. I was saying that this argument
has come up SEPARATELY in several different newsgroups.


Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6244 soc.culture.british:10628