From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: government and the arts
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:57:40 GMT
 <1992Apr14.151259.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca> <1992Apr15.132639.4333@unx.sas.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr15.132639.4333@unx.sas.com>
 sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.151259.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca>,
 dbarker@camins.camosun.bc.ca writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr14.130807.5172@unx.sas.com>,
 sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>|> > *government* shouldn't be doing the funding of any of this stuff.

>|> Can I ask who _should_ be funding this stuff then? Do you consider
>|> that only art which is popular enough to sell deserves to be created?

>No.  But it doesn't follow that *I* should be compelled to pay for its
>development.  I certainly don't feel justified in compelling *others*
>to pay for it.  (Never mind what "deserves to be created" means here!)

So then, any art that gets created with the help of public education is
a burden, too?   You're paying for it, and it takes up a much larger
chunk of public money than all the grant programs combined --- and it
serves remarkably similar functions.

Unfortunately (?), much of the culturewe've come to consider central
presupposes some amount of subsidy.  Corporate subsidy (are you going to
switch phone companies because of a grant?) does some, but there has
always been a governmental share of one sort or another.  (Tax breaks
are subsidies, too, and, yes, you pay for them.)

>If I feel strongly about creating my art, then I might just feel
>strongly enough to support that creation by myself. 

If strong feelings were enough to put money for supplies in one's
pocket, that would be a reasonable argument.  On the other hand, note
that there are many NON-governmnetal grants out there, too, and that
your logic about strong feeling would apply to them too.  After all, the
artist probably doesn't care very much whether it's a public or private
foundation doing the funding.

> Such a novel idea!

Such romantic fantasizing.  Such lack of a relationship to the
actualities of artistic production.

>|> Do you think that private enterprise should be doing the funding?

>This is one possibility, and in fact this is sometimes the case.  It

So much for artistic self-sufficiency...

>might also be necessary for the artist to do *something else* (either
>temporarily or part-time) to suppor the creation of art that he
>can't convince anyone else to support.  

Which the vast majority of artists do, of course, before, after, and
usually during the terms of their grants.  You seem to have a fantasy of
freeloading artists.  I'd like to meet one.

>|> I can't imagine that if Stravinsky had had corporate sponsors they
>|> would have stuck with him after the debacle of The Rite of Spring.

>So?

So it was a lucky coincidence that he could work with the Ballets
Russes.  

On the other hand, this isn't much of an argument, because Diaghilev
thrived on scandal, thus making the evening a success of one kind.
Besides, it was Nijinsky's fault to a great extent, and it DID hurt his
career.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical