From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: government and the arts
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:50:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr14.130807.5172@unx.sas.com> 
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.050658.2370@Princeton.EDU>, 
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>|> Replaced, eh?  One grant that offends Jesse and Chris and some other
>|> people, most of whom haven't even seen the work in question, but rely on
>|> descriptions of it, and you're out of a job?  Do you even know how NEA
>|> grant applications are handled?

>|> This way to commissarism.

>No, the way to commissarism is the creation of state bureaucracies such
>as the NEA, NEH, etc.  The fact that entrenched academics (or their
>counterparts in the "arts" community) become the commissars under
>the guise of protecting such agencies from "political" influence
>cannot wash the 'commissar' label from them (no politics in academia,
>right guys?).

Fine.  What's your point?  WHENEVER there's an establishment,
governmental or private-sector, there will be bureaucrats with large
influence over what gets done.

>Well, I was there.  I had my grants, and I know how the game is played.
>On my desk at this very moment is a grant proposal to an agency such
>as those named above requesting funding for a project in what I will
>call the broad area of "history of some area in humanities that has
>relevance to science" (not wanting to be too specific about the
>particular proposal or the agency). It is typical in that it is
>research that does not need to be done and certainly does not need
>to be funded by our tax dollars.

How do we decide exactly what "needs to be done"?  For that matter, NO
art "needs to be done."  That's part of the definition.

>  Nonetheless, I would bet that
>(despite what I might say as a referee) this guy will get the grant
>because of his track record in academia.  One renegade commissar
>won't have much effect on the system.

So start something.   Tell your friends.

>The point is not that this *one* guy shouldn't get funded, but that
>*government* shouldn't be doing the funding of any of this stuff.

Government shouldn't fund ANY research?  There go the state
universities.  There goes a large chunk of the research at *private*
universities.  There go all kinds of government-funded institutes, such
as the Smithsonian's research.

>I always know it's spring when one of these proposals appears for
>me to referee.  It is interesting that the most vocal champions of
>government funding in these areas are *not* those claimed to
>benefit so much from the results (the average person who would
>*see* the plays or the art, or who would *listen* to the music),
>but those who benefit directly from the dole.  I take it back --
>that's not interesting; it's just business as usual in getting
>your government to work for you.  But perhaps we could have a
>little less of the "nobler than thou" attitude spread over what
>in the end is a self-serving argument?

Partly self-serving, of course.  That's capitalism.  Again, what's your
point?  OF COURSE the people who have an interest in it will promote it.
Aside from their interest, they KNOW something about it.