From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:56:09 GMT

jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeff Gates) writes:

>Mike Percy writes re the NEA:
>"Especially considering that it's just a subsidy to people and activities
>who's product is not fiscally appealing enough to fund itself, or that
>some of the product can support themselves, so why do they need
>subsidies?

>Instead of thinking of art as "product" (and therefore trying and fit it
>into a market system) lets think of the creation of art as "process"
>where how the artist creates is as important (if not more so) as the
>products he/she makes.

So the NEA is funding processes.  What's the point if those processes
don't eventually produce something?  Are we paying scultors to chisel
stone or to create a statue?  Are we paying artists to mix paint and
apply it canvas in the dark?  Are we paying poets to store their poetry
in their RAM drvies and then powering down their computers?  Are we
paying musicians to play to empty halls?  

What benefit is there in the process alone?  No, the real benefit is in
the inspiring sculpture and the touching painting and the feelings in the
poetry, and the splendor of the music.  This is what we're paying for.

>If art is to be considered important in this society, we should focus of
>how one can pass on creativity to others. Artists are in a prime
>position to do so. We do at least one thing where no one is telling us
>what to do (the making of our art). That is a very empowering
>experience. When we pass the ability to be creative on to children and
>others who, for various reasons have been marginalized, we are working
>to build self-esteem. (I don't think I need to diagram the ramifications
>low self-esteem has in our culture.)
 
Oh, please, not empowerment and self-esteem.  What empowerment and
self-esteem will anyone have in a welfare state?  

Of course art is important.  I'd never take such a position.  But your
points are off.  When the government calls pays the bill, the
government can call the tune.  You will not be doing something where no
one is telling you what to do.  

>There are many artists who are working in this manner in the communities
>they inhabit. As an art administration fellow at the NEA two years ago,
>I wrote a report on interaction between artists-run organizations and
>the communities they live in. The social programs that many of these
>artists are developing are in many ways superior to other social
>programs instituted by local, state and federal agencies. AND much of
>this is being done with money from the NEA.

In the welfare state that the USA is becoming, will these children and
artist have much self-esteem?  When art is funded for the sake of
funding art, why bother?  

I see two points of view.  The art has either intrinsic or extrinsic
value (or both, but one surely outweighs the other).  The artist who
creates art for his own pleasure (intrinsic value) will continue to
produce that same art even if not well funded.  He will endeavor
to earn money to support his art.  He will have to if his art is
unappealing to others.  This artist produces art for art's sake and the
funding of the NEA just makes it easier.  Art that has extrinsic value
(someone would pay to have it created or would buy it after it is
created) can also have intrinsic value for the artist, one might say
that it must or the result wouldn't be art.  But if the result has
extrinsic value, the artist should need no funding from the NEA.

So the NEA is funding unappealing art that would be produced anyway, albeit in
a somewhat limited fashion because of lack of money.  Or it is funding
art that should be able to support itself through direct sales or
inderect private funding.  I suppose some art falls in the middle, but
let me assume a double-hump, with most art being one or the other. 

If this is true, then my bankrupt country is wasting money on things
that noone wants (but would still be made even if noone paid for it!) or
on things which don't really need the money (the money makes it easier
to produce, but it not absolutely necessary).  I maintain that a
government in this position cannot afford to fund art in this fashion.
Once our government eliminates the deficit  and carries a surplus, then
it can fund art.

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)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc