From: hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: government and the arts
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:25:40 GMT
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA

In article <1992Apr9.191326.1293@unx.sas.com> sasdrf@daedalus.unx.sas.com (Dave Frederick) writes:
>
>Of course this is true. Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein, Andrew
>Wyeth and Jackson Pollock, Martha Graham, Alvin Ailey, Miles Davis,
>Charles Mingus, William Faulkner, Mark Twain, are just a few of the
>examples that demonstrate a total lack of culture in this country.
>Of course, we have Bart Simpson and Madonna to offer the world, so
>there may be hope for us poor Americans yet!

Of the names mentioned above the only "original" examples of American
culture are Bart and Madonna...Copland and Bernstein were almost totally
influenced by European traditions to the extent that Bernstein, a Jew,
felt compelled to compose a mass. Wyeth and Pollock aren't exactly in
the class of Van Gogh, Rembrandt,etc., tho they are nice if you like
that sort of thing (and Bart and Madonna). Jazz almost approaches an
American tradition except for the very heavy African and Latin American
influences. Writers of Faulkner's and Twain's stature are found in any
literary tradition. They were not unique nor inventive...you might have mentioned
Burroughs or Wolfe.
>
>|> Culture has always been the province of either the wealthy
>|> or the weird.
>
>Well, since I certainly am not wealthy, and since I enjoy music, art,
>and literature, you must be claiming that I'm "weird". Do you make
 
What I meant to imply was that it has been the wealthy who have had
the money to provide the support for the artist and that the non-
wealthy supporter was/is often looked upon by the John Wayne types as
perhaps a bit less than manly. An example could be the perception that
male ballet dancers aren't really all that male...Poets "manly"? 
How about those that support ballet and poetry? Would you "ride the
trail" with them?

>|> The denizens of the political right have always been
>|> suspicious of culture (because so much of it is foreign? Or that the
>|> "cultured" tend to be a bit "different"?) and under the banner of "let
>|> the market decide" have managed to quash any hints of a national subsidy.

I still stand by this...
 
>Let's ignore your political baiting, since that is entirely outside the
>scope of this newsgroup. Why do you think that a "national subsidy" for

Subsidy by its nature is political.

>the arts is an artist's birthright? 

I think a subsidy is not the artists' right but the nation's right. Like
education. "Good" art will survive through education and "bad" art will
probably survive along with the "good" and those able to discern the difference
between Beverly Sills and Milli Vanilli, Harold Robbins and (yes) William
Faulkner will continue to bemoan the fact that New Kids on the Block
make zillions while the local symphony balances on the narrow edge of solvency
and bankruptcy...
 
>Here's a proposal for you. Instead of direct government funding for
>the arts via the NEA, lets have a National Tax Rebate for the Arts.

The same NEA whose head was replaced because Bush is scared to death
of his party's right wing? That NEA? NO thanks...

>The money that would have gone into the NEA would be redistributed to
>the wealthy and weird (Oh, I see below that you define weird to mean
>middle-class. That means I'll get a share, too!). We would be required
>to spend this reabte on "cultural" events, but we get to decide what
>culture is. How many of us would use this money to witness, say, some
>performance art or an exhibit by Robert Mapplethorpe? Then again, how
>many would buy tickets to the symphony or theatre? See the point.

And some would use the rebate to buy black velvet paintings of Elvis..
What's you're point? I'm not going to tell that guy his taste in paintings
is not mine. That's his choice...The main thing is that a choice would
exist and all choices would be available. 


>If we as individuals don't value certain forms of expression that are
>intended to either offend us or represent an explicit countercultural
>message, why should we as a society consider these same works part of
>our "culture"?

Probably for the same reason that some people believe that "creation
science" should be taught in public schools.
 
>Of course, such a rebate could never occur. The denizens of the political
>left (once they have finished screaming "Regressive, regressive. Let's
>soak the rich for every penny they've worked for) have always been

Worked for? No problem. Inherited? Exploited? Problems...
 
>suspicious of being responsible for themselves (because the concept is
>so foreign to them? Or they'd have to think once in awhile) and under
>the banner of "I can't decide" have managed to quash any hints of
>self-sufficiency.

???

>
>|> As to the idea that the arts will remain the preserve of the middle classes
>|> and the well-off, I think you're being optimistic, but that's a topic for
>|> another .newsgroup.....
>|>
>|> Hap
>
>Dave Frederick                          sasdrf@unx.sas.com

Hap
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical