From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 18:26:29 GMT

Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>David Vessell (dave@bradley.bradley.edu) writes re the NEA:
>
>>No one underwrote Vincent Van Gogh, or Salvador Dali, or M. C. Escher.
>>Some masters were working as employees of the state, but most weren't.
>>The government need not subsidize art unless it plans on utilizing it.
>
>Masters like de Vinci and Michaelangelo were heavily subsidized by the
>state (the Church in this case).  That relationship produced much of the
>Renaissance art we enjoy today. It also gives us important information
>about the time. 

My point was that the lack of a government subsidy for an artist does not
mean that art will cease to be produced.  Would da Vinci and Michelangelo
have produced wonderful Renaissance art without government support?  I
maintain so.  Has lack of government support kept us from learning about
the art of van Gogh, Dali, or Escher?  Apparently not.

>
>DV> When you have kids, pass on to them the ability to be
>>creative.  I know I will.  But we don't need the government to do that.
>
>It does it ALL the time (what's all this talk about family values?!!).

That doesn't mean it should.  But that's another argument.

>The government can encourage dialog or discourage it. Dialog is
>important in a free society. This administration is going out of its way
>to discourage it.

Let the government encourage dialogue.  I agree that dialogue is important,
and that the Bush administration is doing its damndest to discourage it and
push their own narrow view of what 'family values' are.  It is for that
reason that government shouldn't be taking active steps to futher its views
of what proper family values are.  The government can encourage dialogue
wihtout endorsing the speakers.


>DV> Give [artists] funding from social agencies.  Social programs are beyond
>>the scope of the NEA.
>
>Based on your definition, perhaps. However, a broader view of art
>practice includes interaction with society (not just commentary or the
>1950s attitude of "art for art sake."). Social programs which link art,
>the notion of creativity, and artists are not beyond the NEAs scope.

Defined such, programs like that could be constructive, but only if they
are conducted with discretion.  I have fewer problems with programs like
these than I do straight-out artist welfare.


>Your byline explains a lot about your world view. I believe the
>government has the responsibility to educate its citizens to think and
>question. 

I believe the government is obligated to preserve the citizens' right to
think and question as they see fit.  Government's influence should stop
there.  But as you said, my .sig is a clue to my world view.  

But I also agree with a previous user who said that this bickering over NEA
funding is rather petty considering how badly our government wastes our
money in other areas.  There are certainly areas of goverment I'd rather
see cut to ribbons.

>
>Best, Jeff
>
>
>
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
               Andre Marrou -- Libertarian for President 1992
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP