A Plea To Unendow The Arts
by Burt PrelutskyFor years, I have argued against the very existence of the National Endowment of the Arts. If an artist can’t be self-sustaining in a capitalist country as large and as rich as America, he should get into another line of work. It’s certainly not the business of the politicians and the bureaucrats, who you notice aren’t spending their own money, to support him and his artistic pipe-dreams.
If 300 million of us have decided we don’t wish to underwrite inferior work, where do a handful of senators and congressmen get off wasting millions of our tax dollars to keep these dilettantes in beer and skittles?
Understand, I’m a live-and-let-live kind of guy, and I have no problem with the private sector squandering its own money any way it likes. Heck, if the trustees of the MacArthur Foundation see fit to bestow $300,000 grants on a bunch of weirdos who write Eskimo poetry or build sand castles, that’s their affair. Still, I can’t imagine why they’d rather give all that money to some beatnik who makes giraffes out of pipe cleaners, and will probably blow the dough on cheap hooch and wild women, when they could just as easily give it to me, knowing that I will use it to buy tax-free municipal bonds.
Almost every time you read about a community going berserk over an art exhibit that is either sheer pornography or re-creates the Christmas crèche using animal blood and human excrement, you can rest assured it’s your tax dollars at work.
A few years ago, I read about a controversial artwork that, for once, wasn’t underwritten by the feds. On that occasion, it was only the good citizens of Livermore, California, who got taken to the cleaners. And if it happened there, it can happen in your hometown. So if you notice your councilmen suddenly sporting berets and floppy bowties, and dropping a lot of French words into their conversation, hang on to your wallets.
It seems the city fathers had $40,000 lying around, so they decided to commission a ceramic mural to grace the exterior of the new library. For some reason, they decided that the perfect artist was someone named Maria Alquilar. I’m not certain why, of all the artists in America who would kill for a $40,000 pay day, she was selected. Only a cynical old poop would hazard a guess that her selection may have had more to do with Ms. Alquilar’s race and gender than with her natural talent. Whatever the reason, it obviously had nothing to do with her spelling ability.
For when the 16-foot-wide work was unveiled, 11 of the 175 famous names had been misspelled! They included the likes of Einstein, Shakespeare, Van Gogh and Michelangelo. On the bright side, Ms. Alquilar got 164 of them right.
In her own defense, the lady said, “The importance of this work is that it is supposed to unite people….The mistakes wouldn’t even register with a true artisan. The people that are into humanities, they are not looking at the words. In their mind, the words register correctly.”
The city council, clearly not into the humanities, subsequently voted to pay the artist an additional $6,000, plus expenses, to fly cross country from her new studio in Miami to correct her spelling errors.
Now do you see why it’s such a stupid idea to allow public servants to dabble in the arts? A private citizen would know better than to fork over the entire $40,000 before the job was finished. You or I certainly wouldn’t pay even more money so that Ms. Alquilar can repair the damage. She’d do it or we’d sue her ass in small claims court!
But, then, you and I don’t go around commissioning art; we know there’s already plenty of the stuff lying around, and without spelling mistakes.
Hell, I’d sue Alquilar just for being so damn snotty, and trying to turn illiteracy into a virtue.
I suppose, to be fair about it, she did get most of the names right. So one could look at the big picture — or ceramic mural, as it were — and ask whether the glass is half full or half empty.
Speaking of that particular glass, I have long wondered who came up with that line, which so neatly defines the distinction between pessimism and optimism. I suspect it might have been the very same fellow who first moved the couch out of the living room and into the office so that he could write it off as a business expense, Sigmund Freud. Or, as Ms. Alquilar might put it — and very likely did on the Livermore mural – Sligmond Fried.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
57 Comments
Darth, LOL!
I never noticed they were nekkid. Honest!
We need an update on this “mural”. Many of these mosaic type works have fallen off walls due to shoddy installation and improper adhesives. Is that work still there? These projects become symbolic of government programs; never fulfill the original expectation and become ongoing budget drains.
Great story and analysis.
“Or, as Ms. Alquilar might put it — and very likely did on the Livermore mural – Sligmond Fried.”
I always spelled it Sickmind Fraud, but for wholly intentionally reasons.
But I agree that the NEA should be disbanded. All it does is subsidize the junk that no one wants to see, and the reason no one wants to see it is because it hovers somewhere between “Sucks” and “Blows” on the Quality Meter.
Which is why the Alcholiquar (a real artisan would read that name correctly) is so telling: “The people that are into humanities, they are not looking at the words. In their mind, the words register correctly.”
Just like in their mind the steaming pile of cow dung is a sculpture and not a steaming pile of cow dung.
Art isn’t about what’s there, but rather about what people pretend is there (and the more you have to pretend, the more artistic–and more expensive–it is!).
But this strikes me as far too burdensome. To ignore what you see and make up some alternative doesn’t exactly strike me as, you know, something RATIONAL people do. In fact, people in mental hospitals are exactly those who do not register what they see and instead make it up in their minds (well, that and those who are trying to appease a media frenzy after they drop racial words while drunk). At best, people who do not register what they read are clueless (i.e. Democrats).
Nick,
How many of those artists received government grants?
Nicely reasoned. I can see no legitimate place for the government funding artists lifestyles.
If I can’t sell enough consulting services, will they fund me too? I think HIGHLY of MY work!
Well Burt, you seem have some thongs in a pinch with this little ditty. The Medici’s got their money the same way any ruling class, does at the point of a gun, or a sword as the case may be. The problem is what’s sanctioned or supported by the ruling class will be diminished by political expectations. Take Impressionism for instance, the vitality, and freedom of these artist, unsurpassed, and beholden to no one. These masters unorthodox approach was wholly disregarded in it’s time, thankfully. Using the argument that without the,"NEA,the world wouldn’t know the artist of the Impressionist era would be well, wrong. In school yes, the arts are critical in the understanding of humanity, it should be taught, and supported the world needs poets. But if you can’t take your goods to the town square, and sell them, “well, to bad life is tuff, in fact it may be an opportunity to change professions, and consider perhaps, a plumber, or an accountant (Obama will make certain we’ll need plenty of these), and provide something that society will actually pay you coin. All the while passionately composing sonnets at night following your bliss, and maybe if your any good one day you can quit your day job, and if not you can be certain later generations will admire your work, because your art its great, “right!
Lola – January 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 am
“No kidding. And of course the WMD that the terrorists we will free in some bizarre moment of Kumbayah from Gitmo and other places will also last 35 to 75 years depending on half life. Thanks Obama voters you all rock. I hope you get all the hope and change you can swallow. In fact I hope you choke on it.”
Gitmo creates terrorists.
Only WMDs and terrorism you have to worry about is coming from Israel. They already suggested they would pull ANOTHER False Flag attack and put a nuke on a ship headed for the East Coast! All so they can fool us in to fighting THEIR wars in the Middle East.
Just like any other government run program, there is an agenda masked in the superficial good. If they were truly about funding art of all kinds, then we would see more than literal crappy anti-Christian works or error laden murals. I guarantee you, if polled, an overwhelming majority of Americans would tell you they don’t consider that art. If they were allowed to be honest, they would make fun of the guy who spent time playing with his poop like it was Play-Doh. People should arrive at a work of art on their own and not because someone tells them it is art. Then again, groups like the NEA think their intelligence and artistic know-how is far beyond that of us, everyday folk. I think Bach is art, along with Thomas Kinkaede. But, what do I know? Why does something have to carry a liberal message to be considered worthy art? What groups like the NEA do is promote the bohemian, society-suckling, leech that is the common artist of today. Where they moan and groan because they believe they should be supported while they create their art. Where has self-respect gone? I guess into the garbage bin with self-responsibility.
Art is not bad. It is a great aspect of humanity and society. But what art and artists are becoming is pathetic. I see nothing wrong with the desire to make money from one’s art. But, if that is the only reason one is creating art, then they are missing art’s biggest aspect – passion.
This is something I’ve never really understood. If you’re a painter or a sculptor or whatever and nobody is willing to buy what you produce… then don’t you have a hobby? Why should I support you?
Especially in the internet age, anyone can maintain their own online museum (blog) and display their artwork for anyone to see. You can even make a vlog and pan your cam around your lil sculpture and give color commentary on how it moved you as an artist.
No need for big gov’t checks.
Well Mr. Blifil I don’t care how prominent you are in your field, you should be able to support yourself without gov’t checks. I see several scenarios here:
One, the money goes to up and coming artists who can’t support themselves. Unnecessary for reasons I pointed out above.
Two, the money goes to established artist who can support themselves. They don’t need the cash.
Three, the money goes to established artist who cannot support themselves, but whom all the “correct” (Liberal) people like. They Really don’t need these checks. Get a job hippie!
Dark Eden, no no no, don’t feed the trolls, crap, to late
“A government-supported artist is an incompetent whore.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
PS. It doesn’t matter if all the pointy headed intellectuals think your work is brilliant (but aren’t willing to pay for it), and all us ignorant parochial hix from thuh stix think your work is amateurish drek made to appeal to said pointy headed intellectuals, if you make art and you can’t make enough money to support yourself on it, then you have a hobby.
Sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities but us parochial types tend to call it likes we sees it.
I say all this as an artist. I currently support myself creating art (sort of). Some of it I create that I don’t particularly like but i know will appeal to the masses. I know in the artistic community this is a terrible sin because we’re all supposed to spit on the masses or something but I enjoy eating and having electricity. Then I make projects just for me.
This is called reality. I don’t need or want a gov’t check and the day that this stops bringing in enough money to support myself is the day I decide that this becomes a hobby and I get a day job.
I would have a hard time saying that my work deserves to be supported by the government. The very idea is deeply offensive to me. The entire concept of the NEA offends me.
Well… in the internet age, you don’t need a physical space to display most artwork. Even orchestras. You can do the bulk of it online. Also being online will allow a much larger community to form than some government supported art center no one goes to anyway.
Sorry for feeding the troll. I dunno, I think Mr. Blifil has some interesting things to say!
Nick, I wouldn’t trade the David for anything, but I will thank Piero Soderini for paying for it.
Patronage. A great system that produced incredible art.
If there’s going to be any public funding of the arts, it should be done on a local level, not a federal one. And better yet, on a private level. As articulated in this article, and in many of the comments, art is personal and as such, it should not be left to the federal government to determine which artists get promoted. Especially with other people’s money.
Nick Daly,
Shakespeare didn’t need government grants. He wrote his plays with an eye to the bottom line. He wanted to sell tickets, and he did. That’s why his plays have lasted. Most of the NEA-cycle horrors don’t last beyond the shock value of the latest news cycle. If you want more Shakespeares and fewer “beginning ballet moves performed in a vat of kettle corn while smeared in blood and chocolate sauce,” abolish the NEA and stick to private funding.
Actually I would say my personal profession is a bit too new to be getting any sustenance from the government. If you’re curious go to darkedenplaza.blogspot.com. (Possibly NSFW depending on how uptight your boss is)
To a certain degree there is an inherent left/right disagreement about the role of government here. A lot of things you’re talking about, Mr. Blifil, also offend my delicate libertarian sensibilities. However, I think there’s a distinct difference between the NEA and supporting business. This is especially true considering the reality of the culture war, and that the NEA has become a bastion of using government funds in essence to attack my way of life. This is simply reality.
Uh-oh, Joan.
Naked peepulz in teh link!!!!1!!!11!!1!
Charges of “hypocrisy” forthcoming in 5 … 4 … 3 …
I work in the performing arts and from what I understand from colleagues that work in Canada and Europe there is actually less diversity, choices, or opportunities than in the USA. Sure for those few that are supported, their life is great from a financial/benefits perspective. But the options are much narrower and if the government agency decides to stop the funding, that’s it. Because of the way our tax structure works with donations, the USA (govt, foundations, individuals combined) actually supports arts more than the other countries and from what I’ve heard, in some instances other countries are looking at ways to emulate the USA model that has more depth and breadth in its stability.
Mr Blifil said:
—–
That’s all well and good, I guess, but you should know that President Obama recently stated his outright support for government funding of the Arts and not only will NEA not be disbanded, it will have it’s budget increased.
Ah, feel the reality…
—–
You obviously have a problem with the is/ought fallacy. I gave an “ought”; that is, the NEA *should* be disbanded. This is not an “is” statement. Your attempt at creating self-contradictory tension within my argument is humourous.
What’s also funny is how strident you are in your rampage. It’s almost like you have a personal interest in the NEA. It does tend to attract those types of individuals that lack the talent necessary to get people to pay them money willingly.
True talent doesn’t require government to pay for it. If an artist has true value, people will automatically want to support that artist. And furthermore, the notion that we need the government to pay for it to enrich our communities proves that our communities obviously don’t care about it either. You might think that we should have whatever you consider to be “art” on display, but apparently IT’S NOT A BIG DEAL TO THE REST OF AMERICA. Thus, we must save America from herself and force her to accept that which she does not willingly want. For the children. Who are starving.
And also for orphan puppies.
But mostly for liberals who can’t get a real job seeing as how their only skill is soiling themselves while looking down their nose at people who actually have talent.
Ah, feel THAT reality.
I’m no history buff, but I think the Renaissance happened without federal funding.
Great discussion! I’ve been bugged all morning by the idea of NPR. I believe it gets 50 million a year from the Feds to stay in business and yet they promote a very far left agenda. How did that happen! How can this be stopped? Seriously, who has ideas. With all the talk about the conservatives need to be more successful with the usage of media (influence hearts and minds) what about stopping the insanity of NPR? Wouldn’t that be a great place to start. Ideas please.
“All the European countries had robust government funded programs, which they have all recently scaled back. As a result they have much more diverse offerings than can be experienced her in the USA.”
I’d love to see any evidence in support of the above statement. I work in the concert industry and have found the state supported European classical and jazz ensembles to be the refuge of hacks and dullards who spend extravagantly on travel, hotels, food, and commissions to unknown American University professors. And they all, without exception, have a union mandated 15-minute beer break for every 90 minutes of work. Not kidding.
Good point about The Blueman Group, but as I am sure you are aware, they are the execption and not the rule. This still doesn not justify the millions of federal dollars that are given to artists, based on a politian’s opinion of art and not the persons who contributed the funds for the federal dollars. And where did you read in that post any explanation of SGT MOM’s sensibilities? Are you a mind reader? Folks, we are in the company of the fantastic.
Great, a lecture on art from a tv movie-of-the-week writer. That’s like a lecture on ethics from Bernie Madoff. Did you write that episode of Dragnet where they caught the kid on acid? Wow, great stuff.
It is your brand of ‘humor’ that has led directly to reality shows and the death of tv. After all, why pay some guy to make up garbage when you can just film it directly?
I’ve been saying there should be no government subsidizing of the arts for years, and as a musician and composer, this gets me some very… um… “harsh” reactions. But, the fact is, musical composition has been overtaken by rampant dilettanteism precisely because a bunch of self-proclaimed “art experts” who draw a government paycheck decide to subsidize abject garbage that has absolutely no public following. Same goes for the visual arts, poetry, ad nauseum.
You might ask yourself, “Why?” Well, the answer is – as with all things governmental – politics. Do you think any conservative traditionalists – you know, the kind of people who actually spend the requisite DECADES mastering the craft involved in their art – ever see any funding? mmmmmmmmmNo, because those self-proclaimed government-employed art experts who weaseled their way into their positions are all spittle-slinging leftists. So, you get a bunch of gay, lesbian, and bisexual leftist poseurs being funded by… their pals on the inside.
If private foundations want to fund heinous excrement and call it art, fine, but why should I – much less Joe Six-Pack – be forced to smell the stench of this rot because our tax dollars have been confiscated to enable it? It is a positive immorality.
Hucbald
If private foundations want to fund heinous excrement and call it art, fine, but why should I – much less Joe Six-Pack – be forced to smell the stench of this rot because our tax dollars have been confiscated to enable it? It is a positive immorality.
My point exactly!
Bli.. so you’re telling us that the “only” reason the Blue Man Group got a break was because of govt funding? They couldn’t have found a large chartiable-theatrical outlet that might have given them the same chance?
If that’s the case (that NOBODY else would have taken a chance on them), then we might as well do away with _any_ charitable organizations, since it’s now the govt’s responsiblity to give them the chance to succeed?
A few years ago I was arguing on a blog devoted to opera that we should quit funding PBS with tax dollars. They used to broadcast 3 operas a year on PBS and the next day the blog was filled with comments about how wretched it was. Everyone was tired of the same old chestnuts and dull performances. I pointed out to them that even if their share of the tax money was only $25, that was enough to buy a ticket, CD or DVD of an opera they actually liked. Unfortunately, that logic was lost on them and they accused me of heresy for “not supporting the arts.”
“Why do conservatives always seem to feel that their personal experience trumps all other considerations?”
Why do liberals always seem to feel that their sweeping unsupported assertions on every topic have any value?
Mr. Bilfil said…..Trolls? How am I trolling?
Well, when there are 10 to 20 posts out of every hundred on a thread belonging to one person who is merely insulting the other posters….well, that’s sort of the definition.
As another artist (musician) who spent two years living with a struggling painter, I’m in complete agreement that the NEA is a complete waste of money. Like most Liberal organizations, the idea is charming, but the execution is crap. You want to fund art supplies and low-mid wage art teachers for underprivileged kids? I don’t think there would be an argument. Unfortunately, far too much money ends up going to people who pour chocolate on their nude bodies and call it “performance art,” or ones who desecrates religious symbols and call it provocative or brave (although they never do it to Muslim ones, surprisingly enough).
Barack will fund the NEA because that’s what Liberals do…they tell us they’ll take care of the poor, then instead waste the money on vanity projects and friends. The next Republican president will reverse the policy because that’s what they do. The only people getting screwed are the tax payers who continue to struggle to provide for their families and have no voice in either scenario.
Thomas Talionis – January 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
I’m no history buff, but I think the Renaissance happened without federal funding.
By far, the largest benefactor of the Renaissance was the Roman Catholic Church. Many famous renaissance artists, such as Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and Donatello, as well as influential writers like Dante and Servantez, created their masterpieces on the Church’s dime.
I’m sure MR BLIFIL will find something nasty to say about the Catholic Church now, though I could not imagine myself possibly caring less about such comments.
And once again, the liberal argument hits:
“The NEA supports programs and commissions, not lifestyles, if these artists were making statues of Bush you’d definitely act to get them funding”
First, the name calling (Nascar murals.. motel rooms) starts and then the self-projection begins once again… Nowhere in any of the comments can you find one argument for a ‘pro-Bush’ artist _getting_ govt. funding, Lou. I sure didn’t see any of the conservative opinions on this post say that.
“Maybe you should realize that the art market is struggling in this country because people like you who are frightened by anything that is challenging and artistic”
Quick! More Bailout money for artists!!! The “Santa Claus” treasury is being paged once again!
How about the fact that the market is struggling, because the supply that is being given is not what is demanded by the public? (It’s a simple economic supply-n-demand thing… (current recession not withstanding?)
First,
Mr Bilfil said: “There are so many examples of popular artists, cultural icons, from every imaginable discipline, who got their start or benefitied in their development from public arts funding, as to render your puling noises of objection beneath all dignity of a response.” This is obviously Libspeak for “I don’t know any more examples of them, please God don’t ask me for details or I’ll look like an idiot.”
Secondly, Lou said: “We need to support the arts (which includes visual arts, theater, music, etc…) because our country needs culture.” Which begs the question as to which culture. Nazis had a culture, ya know. Bacteria have culture. (Yes, horrible pun, but I couldn’t resist cuz that would be to the detriment of culture. For the children. And orphan puppy dogs….)
Lou further said: “Maybe you should realize that the art market is struggling in this country because people like you who are frightened by anything that is challenging and artistic.” And maybe it is you who should realize that if someone has to TELL you that something is art because when you just look at it it looks like a pile of refuse, THEN IT ISN’T ART. If you make art and no one recognizes that it’s art, it ain’t art.
“If you had an artistic/creative bone in your body, you’d quit making art sound like it’s something for a privileged few.” And if you had any skill in art, you’d quit trying to let bogus crap be passed off as art, which only cheapens true art.
Maybe you should realize that the art market is struggling in this country because people like you who are frightened by anything that is challenging and artistic.
So it took a grand total of 2 posts before someone defended art by calling it “challenging.” I’m shocked….really. In a post filled with nothing but platitudes about us “Supporting the arts,” or people not having an “artistic/creative bone in your body,” (quite a statement when the poster has never met anyone he’s attacking with that particular generalization), Lou has made my point for me.
Thanks, buddy.
And if you had any skill in art, you’d quit trying to let bogus crap be passed off as art, which only cheapens true art.
We used to have a far-Left loon (but a really good guy) on the radio here that I loved to listen to. He was so passionate about his beliefs that he sounded like one of the characters from The West Wing. He bragged endlessly about Enough Z’Nuff, a local Chicago band that achieved a decent amount of national/international success. He talked about how great they were, and about how everyone should listen to them because their writing and performing was so superior to most other bands.
Then he turned right around and while defending the stupid art (i.e. performance art, flag on the sidewalk, cross in urine, etc…) said that no one had the right to say whether art was good or bad. I almost drove my car off the road while screaming, “Music is art, you moron! You’re saying that if I fart into a microphone, it’s just as valid as your favorite band.”
That aside, he was one of those guys who spent more time defending his beliefs than attacking others, so it was fun to listen to him. Liberals always say that Conservatives criticize them because they can’t stand contradictory ideas. The truth is, no one (as evidenced by the massive failure that was Air America and is MSNBC) wants to listen to shrieking, hateful people who have no interest in anything but demonizing people who disagree with them.
Please see the Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 8. Thank you.
[...] Burt Prelutsky’s plea to “unendow the arts”: For years, I have argued against the very existence of the National Endowment of the Arts. If an [...]
This is getting ugly…fast. Art is art.
No, it really isn’t. I am not ever going to agree that Michaelangelo’s David has no more artistic merit than a Karen Finley performance art piece (or people who throw paint-filled balloons at a blank canvas). I find the mere suggestion that they are both the same thing to be just insane. There isn’t enough money to do everything. There is healthcare, energy costs, national defense, construction, and about a billion other groups waiting in line for their government handout.
Personally I’d rather make sure the poor have access to healthcare than the twits that run the NEA have enough money to take of the people that will make them look cool and edgy to their peers. 300 million would look really nice in the hands of Doctor’s Without Borders.
Burt, I didn’t even read the whole post before coming way down here to the very bottom of the page to tell you RIGHT ON! Make that 301 million people against National Endowment for the Arts.
It’s welfare for the struggling artist, in my opinion.
No doubt some NEA money has gone to worthy projects and some to unworthy projects.
The relevant philosophical question for me is who decides?
It seems to me that the NEA is just another example of the government putting its thumb on the scale. By that I mean that true artists will create regardless of any obstacles. Some will find or create a market and others won’t. Either way, all artworks, greater or lesser, become historical artifacts that carry the varied perfumes of a given culture. By picking winners and losers, the NEA fosters an inorganic market which has the potential to turn the art it funds into elitist political statement.
This is not necessarily an all good or all bad outcome but my concern is what it does to art. When artists start chasing grants instead of seeking to illuminate or mirror the culture, we lose something important and valuable in my view.
I just saw a wonderful, thought-provoking play debut last week, and the playwright was subsidized with a grant and lodgings to write it. I’m sure some in the audience might have not got the themes or where he was taking it, but I did and it was a thrilling experience. Art is subjective; just because you or I don’t care for it does not mean it won’t speak to someone else. And I say this with no disrespect, but I think it would be a bit hypocritical to complain about the beauty and nuance of, say, the movies of yesteryear, then trash all modern art that you don’t like; my roommate hates old films while I love them, and that’s fine. I don’t mind some of my hard-earned money going to help American artists expand our ways of thinking and feeling, if that’s not too schmaltzy to say; most of the greatest artists in history were financed through the purse of patrons. (Also, gasp, I grew up on PBS and like to think it helped make me a better educated, well-rounded person, and still watch and love it.)
That being said, I don’t like the idea of the Obama administration handing the NEA a blank check, to do with as they please. There needs to be accountability and the money needs to help as many as possible. I agree that government waste extends to the government-supported arts as well, and there needs to be oversight into who gets funded and how they spend it. And if supporting the arts means Obama gives out my hard-earned money to all his little celebrity friends, well, that day I will know that, in fact, he is criminally insane.
Mr. Blowhard said: This is obviously Pikespeak for “I’m too lazy to make my own inquiries because I prefer the feeling of being convinced I’m right no matter which direction the facts point to.’”
Except you made an assertion and failed to back it up. I’m not required to do your research for you. You made the claim, YOU prove it.
You said: “I already alluded to Blue Man Group in this thread” which is irrelevant, because it is AFTER that that you said: “There are so many examples … &c.” Name those examples.
You can’t. Because you’re left with vague generalities. “Most Hollywood film and television performers” for example. So name them.
To show you the absurdity of your position, most clincical psychologists believe people who use a handle with the letters “Blifil” in them are alcoholics who beat small children and hurt puppies.
But I’m not going to coddle you by naming a single one of them. You have to do the search to prove me wrong. Because everything I say is ipso facto true until you prove me wrong, as I have made a claim and in typical liberal fashion do not require any actual evidence for said claim.
And of course if you point out the logical problems with any of the above, I will whine and complain and make a complete ass of myself by posting irrelevant comments in every thread I can find.
burt – you are a hoot as usual!
i’ve been saying the same thing for years – see how long some of these ventures will last if people “choose” to endow them.
Hey TB, Jesus created everything and he fits the mold of exactly what a conservative should be. Which is also why being conservative will never be what the world deems as cool. People like you despised Jesus and beat him and killed him.
You’re cute Georgie, now seriously,name one.
Dennis Miller is one of my favorite comedians (along with Dana Carvey and Norm Macdonald…all more or less Conservative). John Voight is a great actor, but I’ve got to give my money to Charleton Heston. If you’re talking music, would you like me to name Conservatives in Rock, Blues, Country, Motown, Heavy Metal, Punk, Jazz, or Classical? Shall we talk great Literary figures? That one’s even easier.
Most of the really great painters and sculptors (at least in my humble opinion) are from earlier in history and can’t be classified as Liberal or Conservative by today’s American definitions. While the bulk is definitely Left-leaning (and there are some very common sense reasons for the trend), to say they are all Liberals is….well…pretty ignorant of the facts.
I’m sorry TB, are you implying that there is good art and bad art (and what isn’t art at all)….and that we can be the arbiter of what qualifies? If so, I guess Burt’s articles is right on.
Thanks for your help.
BTW, yes, I’ve been a fan of Dennis Miller since SNL, whether I agreed with his politics or not. Evidently that’s the difference between us. I don’t need someone to parrot my opinions in order to enjoy their work.
What amused me about the whole episode was Ms. Alquilar’s pretension in using “artisan” instead of “artist”. Maybe she thought, “Wow! ‘Artisan’ is a far more exotic word than ‘artist’. I must surely be an ‘artisan’, and not a plebe.” Those of us who actually know what both words mean are laughing up our sleeves, since according to dictionary.com, an artisan is:
ar⋅ti⋅san
/ˈɑrtəzən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahr-tuh-zuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person skilled in an applied art; a craftsperson.
A “person skilled in an applied art”, like, say, spelling, would most definitely register the mistakes. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Dear Mr. Pike: I wish to thank you for putting Blifil in his proper place, in the trash barrel by the curb. You’ve saved me a great deal of trouble. I’m only surprised that he didn’t bother including Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Bach, in his list of artists who owed their careers to the NEA.
Regards, Burt
Oh ferchrissake…Jeff Daniels, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Alvin Ailey, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Kevin Spacey, Steve Buscemi, Annette Bening, Mike Meyers, Martin Short, Morgan Freeman, Edward Albee, Martha Graham, James Earl Jones, Merce Cunningham, Alice Walker, Pavarotti, Anthony Hopkins, David Mamet, The Vietnam Veterans Memorial, John Lithgow, Patrick Stewart, Celeste Holm, Jerome Robbins, I. M. Pei, Sidney Poitier, RIchard Rogers, Gregory Peck, John Steinbeck, Robert Wise, the list of popular artists who benefited from public financing of art (including the performing arts) is positively endless. I’m actually embarrassed for you.
Mikhail Baryshnikov??? Are you freaking kidding me? The most famous dancer of his time (not to mention born, raised, and achieved superstardom in Russia). Wow, the NEA really does reach far. No wonder we have to give them so much money (since I guess Mikhail could never have succeeded without their support, since no one was interested in his art).
Good Lord, do you actually read this stuff before you post it? There wasn’t a person on that list who couldn’t have succeeded without sponging off the public. That was the entire point of Pete’s post. If you really don’t understand that, I promise to type slower from now on.
On target, Burt. To decry the supposed vital necessity for the NEA is the height of arrogant self-importance that we in the arts are all too prone. (I know, we just don’t have enough self-congratulatory awards shows these days…) But why not the Nat’l. Endowment for Food Distribution/ Isn’t eating more important than gazing at art? We apparently already now have the Nat’l. Endowment for Auto Makers, Banks, Insurance, and Mortgage Companies. Why even have a free market at all? Why should people be able to decide for themselves how to spend their own money? Selfish bastards. Tell you what, we’ll just all go to work, send our entire paycheck to the government and let them decide what our lives should be about. Oh wait…seems to me they’ve tried that somewhere before…
Prelutsky should examine in detail the government give aways to corporations and the military/industrial complex before he complains about a relatively tiny government organization that helps support art musuems, symphony orchestras, opera companies, ballet companies and civic-supported art works. He is a cultural boor whose ignorance of what the NEA is really about should grant him admission to any stone-age society.
[...] and his artistic pipe-dreams.If 300 million of us have decided we dont wish to underwrit source: A Plea To Unendow The Arts, Big [...]
[...] and his artistic pipe-dreams.If 300 million of us have decided we dont wish to underwrit source: A Plea To Unendow The Arts, Big [...]
[...] essay by Burt Prelutsky that was published on the same site. The title of the piece is “A Plea to Unendow the Arts“; I included these two [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.