Art is Stuff …and Stuff Happens
by Gary GrahamThis stuff doesn’t happen on its own. Somebody must create it. Art is the product of conscious action. But art cannot be considered ‘art’…until it is named. It must be called ‘art.’ And it seems today that regardless of the number of dissenters from that designation, if one person decides that something is art – it’s art, dammit. End of discussion. For to impugn its veracity would be to malign someone’s character. It might even get you called ‘racist.’ To tell an artist that what he or she has produced is not ‘art’ would be spewing hate speech just as though you’d burned a cross on their lawn or dipped a crucifix in urine. (Oh wait…that’s been done. And come to think of it…that was called art. Ahhh…I am beginning to see many disparities and conflicts in the rational line here.)
Help me along — I am apparently a bit slow. Something is ‘art’ if the ‘artist’ says it is art. Even if the viewer of said art is highly offended and appalled by this so-called art. Then it’s his or her problem… get over it…go back to Wasilla and blow up a moose.
But should you dare suggest that it might not be the best use of public funds to bankroll exhibitions that the majority of Americans consider to be highly offensive and even pornographic — well…then you obviously must be a hate-filled, intolerant, racist homophobe, and you are to be minimalized as a right-wing fringe kook.
Oh, I see… The artist is to be given free latitude to explore the limits of his or her creativity without the stifling puritan sensibilities that close-minded conservative crackpots constantly try to place upon them. After all, the ‘artist’ is above reproach. The artist resides in the ivory tower of high aspirations, dontcha know. They lift mankind up to a loftier vision of the possibilities of man, careless of where their heightened genius will take them. They’re only the messenger of this Higher Vision that chooses none but the special people, (like themselves, the artiste), through which to speak to the world. And they don’t want money for their genius contributions to the betterment of society, oh no. (Or so they proclaim…as they lobby for and receive huge government grants and subsidies for their ‘art’.)
They are the self-Chosen Ones…smarter, more enlightened, brimming with brightness, and sweeter smelling than the rest of us mere mortals. They deign to move about and amongst us, only by their generous beneficence. They and they alone are the true Givers in our sad and squalid society. They are the signposts that point us in the correct direction as we silly little peons putter about our sad, pathetic lives, hoping beyond hope that we can actually get along without their inspired and beatific counseling. They have built crystalline cathedrals of ego dedicated to their shining self images of magnificence and human exaltation, their exaltation and nobility of … The Artist.
I love it. You don’t have to go to school. You don’t have to gain a degree. You don’t have to work for any length of time at anything, really. All you have to do to be an artist…is call yourself an ‘artist’. I could glue some petrified dog-poo to a board, swipe it with blue spray paint, hold it up high — and some doodle-weed would call it ‘art’.
Which is fine! I have no problem with that. Throw monkey snot on the wall, frame it and call it whatever you want. Just don’t make John Q. Public to pay for it!
Having been a member of the film community for over thirty years…and considered by a few (close family members) to be somewhat of an actual ‘artist’ myself, I speak with a modicum of authority on this issue. The level of merit (or the lack thereof) of my particular brand of ‘art’ is a debate for another time. Suffice it to say that I have been firmly ensconced in the Los Angeles artistic community for the better part of my life… and I know a few things.
First off – there’s a ton of bullshit calling itself art out there.
I know – I’ve made a lot of it. And the copious amounts of energy propping up the “it’s art!” illusion…well…that’s a whole industry unto itself. And that rubs us up against one favorite saying of mine; in fact I think I coined it: “Just because you say it’s ‘art’ – don’t mean dick.”
Now… I apologize for that. Not for the vulgarity, but for the poor grammar. (But it’s funnier with poor grammar, so there it is.)
And let me say that I have nothing against art, or even the worldwide community of artists. In fact, I am a great lover of art. But I’m also realistic enough to accept that my definition of what art is and what it is not and your definition of same are very likely, at the end of the day, quite different. We will probably agree on some — and vehemently come to odds over others. Because no two tastes are alike. What is art to me might be dog-poo to you. And vice versa. That’s cool, to each his own.
And in a free market, this works out just fine. The struggling artist on the sidewalk displays his wares — and as I walk by, my eye catches a particular painting that speaks to me. I am drawn closer and stare at it in fascination. Something about the texture in his brush strokes, or how he played with the light glinting off the ocean…or the posture of the old woman, say, and how it spoke to me of human resiliency and hope…and suddenly I had to have the painting. We strike a quick bargain; the artist receives my cash happily and I walk away with a piece of art that moves me in some positive way.
Or I’ll be spending a lovely day at Venice Beach, having lunch at my favorite sidewalk café …and a street performer will suddenly break into a hilariously annoying comedy mime act, preying on hapless passersby, to everyone’s delight and amusement. He charmingly passes the hat, collects his tips, makes us laugh some more and we are literally throwing cash at him, so grateful for the brief show. His performance art was offered freely, and we enjoyed it, and many of us chose to support his craft and give him money. This talented street artist cleans up, and everyone walks away happy.
The above scenarios happen to me all the time. And this is how art is supported in a free and rational society. Voluntarily. By free choice.
It is not a free and rational act to form an institution that hires ‘artists’ of varying degrees of talent (and possibly dubious and questionable motives), paid for by dollars taken from taxpayers who have no say as how those dollars are spent.
One word: Maplethorpe.
Not to speak ill of the departed, but it wasn’t just homo-erotica and such exhibits, which included photos of bullwhips inserted in a man’s anus (all funded by the National Endowment for the Arts), that brought this ‘artist’ to fame; it was also a quaint little speciality called ‘Coprophagia — in which he displayed photographs of various insects consuming animal feces.
Lovely. Your hard-earned tax dollars at work. (Hey – Art happens!)
And you know what? I don’t even have a problem with people calling that ‘art’. If they want to pay for photographs of flies eating poo, fine. Not a problem.
But when you and I and my friends and neighbors are forced to pay for that — then I have a huge problem with it!
Art is probably the most subjective form of human expression imaginable, and as such — Art should not be subsidized by the government. Either art is free – or it’s a business. And if it’s a business, it should be run like a business, in which goods and/or services are offered in a free market and citizens have the option of purchasing said goods and services – or walking away. This is just common sense; and I can hardly believe in this supposed age of enlightenment that this is even a controversial notion.
Art is a business. And government has no business forcing us to pay for any of that business.







Subscribe via RSS
105 Comments
much of what is called art looks like something I could do. And since I believe myself to have no artistic ability, If I can do it it can't be art.
But there is a lot of stuff that is not done by highly skilled artists that still speaks to me.
So my rule is not hard and fast.
I like what I like and can't always explain why.
Some stuff that doesn't appeal to me is art and some stuff that I like is panned by the "learned" art world.
what does this all mean? I ought to give art a try, it can't be any worse than some stuff out there and who knows if I dedicate it to a "cause" i might make some money.
RACIST!!!11111!!!!1
I really like the giant balloon dog.
I'd also like to find some nice black velvet paintings of Sarah Palin, without having to drive to Tijuana.
As to the old "bullwhip up the guy's butt"; they told me it was a standard prostate exam, and the next thing I know they're all laughing and snapping pictures. Now they're calling it ART?
I appreciate the humor in how you make your points, because I tend to rant about this subject.
All art should be privately financed, period. Then, it doesn't matter what you call art, or whether or not what you call art is actually art: Those things return to being academic debates, which is where they started out.
Of more interest to me, however, has been learning how we got to where we are today vis-a-vis the debate about what is and is not art. In the most simplistic of nutshells, we have been suffering, for the past century or so, a hangover from the Romantic notions of what art is and what artists are. One central figure of the Romantic era was the idealized – and completely fictitious – "Noble Savage": The idea that an unspoiled man in his natural state was somehow superior to a civilized one. That this idea was born in the salons of wealthy aristocrats in the late 19th century is ironic, but not surprising: None of them had ever encountered real, actual savages. Well, I have. If you have enough money, I can take you to meet some of them. It would be good for a lot of people if they did, because there's nothing better to dash ridiculous romantic notions with than reality.
So, a lot of people who call themselves artists today are, whether conscious of it or not, trying to live the false ideal of the noble savage. Previously, artists were expected to study, often in apprenticeship programs, to master the techniques and history of their art, but not anymore.
Romanticism leads to nihilism, it's as simple as that, because when everybody is an artist, nobody is an artist and when everything is art, nothing is.
So if I take a crap in the toilet, take a photograph of it and name it then it's art?…. Cool!!! maybe I will be rich one day and not have to work from home….
So if I take a crap in the toilet, take a photograph of it and name it then it's art?…. Cool!!! maybe I will be rich one day and not have to work away from home….
*snick*
that was too easy but hey funny none the less
and I believe the velvet painting is an underrated art form. (If anyone has a line on a good Velvet Elvis about 36" x 24" or bigger let me know)
*snick*
that was too easy but hey funny none the less
and I too believe the velvet painting is an underrated art form. (If anyone has a line on a good Velvet Elvis about 36" x 24" or bigger let me know)
I would suggest a 90% tax on all entertainers who make over 500K to pay for the NEA and school arts programs but I know those greedy bastards would just pass that tax along to the consumers of their product.
lol Tom, your last comment made me lol for real.
A caveat to my tax; it applies only to those who are registered Dems or who consistently support the Dems.
Sure. Call it "Waxman Reclining".
many people are admired for the sheer act of doing something no-one has done before. as though this quality in a persons character makes them somehow acting out a moral / spiritual act of superiority, nevermind that there is no substance to it. it is another example of form over substance, or should i say form without substance. this sort of explains the liberal establishment doesnt it? a big idea that has no place in reality.
"One word: Maplethorpe."
Oh! Is this a "word association quiz"? I'll take it then.
*****
Q: "Maplethorpe"
A: piss
*****
So that is his imprint on History, the first thing that come to mind when you think of him. Heh.
That's Justice of a sort, I guess….
Marcel Duchamp predicted this with his "DADA" spoofs…..It's just taken this long for the whole schlmazel to spiral to it's current peak of lunacy….Being an "artist" has very little real meaning anymore since anyone can self identify as an artist whether they have talent or anything remotely interesting to say…..All they need is a public platform…..Art has been stuck in a post modern holding pattern for at least 30 years…..
I'm an artist with a formal education who identifies myself through medium since Hip Hop & actors & DJ's have hijacked and redefined the classical use of the moniker….Sometimes I paint paintings….But today I'm painting a friends door…..Still I'm a painter…..
Seen it….
Also in the offensive category: In the same exhibition: shirtless 12 year old with nosebleed, trail of blood down to his belly button
Different exhibition, in the easy category: a photograph of everything the photographer ate for one year (pre-digestion, thankfully)
Also in the easy category: Jackson Pollack. I've got some finger paintings from my two year old that look a lot cooler, from a pure design standpoint, than anything Pollack has done.
Art is what you can get away with.
yeah Pollack is among those when I look at it I say "I could do that."
I'd like a simple explanation of why his stuff is "art". I admit I am uncultured and what not, but I just do not get it.
Well thanks for bursting my bubble man… :/ I will just have to find something else then….
To me, art is something that I can look at, appreciate it's beauty, appreciate the story it tells, then move on to the next exhibit without wondering if it's hanging upside down.
I like Charles Russell and Frederick Remington's art about frontier life, David Mann's art about the biker life, and Thomas Kinkade's landscapes.
Why should I subsidize offensive "art?" If they can sell it, then they are painting "art." If no one buys it, then I guess it isn't "art."
LOL!
Your two year old doesn't have an agent. That's the difference.
He went to art school and hung out with artists. Thus, his paint drips are "art." My four-year-old niece has not been to art school and mostly hangs out with other four-year-olds, so her paint drips are "not art." OTOH, I can afford to hang her drips on my fridge since David Geffen doesn't own half the world's supply
They would only pass it along as long as someone would pay for it. And that someone ain't me.
circumstances determine quality
now that I can understand
Is it any wonder that ACORN suggested that the "pimp and prostitue" (O'Keefe and GIles) call her profession )for IRS purposes) – performance artist!
"…they told me it was a standard prostate exam…"
Stop it Tom, yer killin' me!!! Oh…man…whew… that one almost knocked me off my chair. (and I did blow a bit of coffee through my nose, if that's a cap-feather.) HA!
"Uh…Doc…is it normal for you to grab both my shoulders when you check my prostate..??"
"Art is the product of conscious action", if one is considering the prep work, maybe.
On the other hand, the best definition of "art" I have ever read is:
"Science is spectrum analysis: art is photosynthesis" Karl Krauss
A working independent contracted, or commissioned artist creates what they are paid to create, according to the whim of the buyer.
An inhouse artist creates what they are paid to create, according to the direction of the marketing analysis crew.
The whole so-called "grants program" was originally intended to supply financial support to American artists, independent of corporations and creative control, so they could create completely free art projects, unhindered by the controls of marketing, and, or, whims of the "buyers".
When the NEA, which operates on government funding (tax money) to "support the arts", stopped offering grants to independent artists, and instead funneled their grants into "organizations", it was a step away from "art".
When the NEA starts telling those "organizations", and/or "artists", what to "create", in order to promote a political agenda, all pretense at "supporting art" fell away, and any self respecting "artist", or so-called "representative of artists" should have walked out, over principal.
You are so right, in that buyers/investors are free to buy art they like, love, want, can't live without, or what they want to invest in, they are also free to commission artists to create what the buyer envisions or wants.
When the buyers/investors are the taxpayers of the United States, the art we buy/commission should not be chosen by some group with a one-track political agenda, which is not representative of ALL the people of the United States.
It was all just so,…. slimy.
I caught hell for my stance in Art School and currently fight with my peers about theft from the public to fund arts.
I make art and sell it to people that want to buy it. I'm with you. Using the federal government to thieve from me, my friends, and neighbors by gun point if necessary is crap. FTS.
Brilliant point, Hucbald — the notion of the artist as the Noble Savage. It explains a lot about how we've gotten here. And I agree that 'Romanticism' leads to nihilism. This is the essence of the well-intentioned, but hoplessly naive modern Liberal. It's sad that our new national mantra of "tolerance" winds us down that path, in which ALL is accepted and ALL is condoned and ALL is great. I'm old-school. If everything is great….then really, nothing is.
We don't all have to all agree upon what the standards of excellence are…but to vaporize any and all standards (in some misguided notion of tolerance and justice) is to accept sloth and indolence and sanction societal mediocrity.
Oh…but i guess we'd all be equal then, huh?
Contemporary art has become as isolated an endeavor as a fart in a spacesuit. REAL art is an invitation to the viewer to share something in common with the artist–what Gary aptly describes as "something that speaks to me." I've noticed that much contemporary 'art' comes with a page of explanations as to the PC emotion I'm supposed to come away with after viewing.
Even before the latest NEA kerfluffle, far too many of the arts community see themselves as a self-annointed priesthood with a divine right to the public purse.
I'd love to be a writer…work on it in my spare time, but you know what? I also have to pay bills, buy gas, eat, etc.
So five days a week, I get out of bed and haul my butt to work. If I ever sold any of my writing, then maybe I'd make it a profession, but in the meantime, it's an avocation, a pastime, an activity that gives me and a few others pleasure. That's enough for me.
Heck, my refridgerator door must be worth millions if I say it is.
Anyone interested.
If you opt for the trip to TJ, Ill go with ya. Been looking for a black velvet "Famous Conservatives Playing Poker" to hang on the wall in my gameroom.
I guess you then you could call this Presidency Art. Some consider it the most beautiful master they have seen. Others call it excrement that we are all paying for. So I guess some of us are blind and others drink to much wine.
You also need to be living in a downtown "loft" apartment, paid for by someone else (they tend to be expensive). That's one of the big qualifiers to being called an "artist".
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by uscarlos and Michele R. King. Michele R. King said: RT:"Art is Stuff …and Stuff Happens" http://bit.ly/cuRUs THX @Q_Element 4 remind how IRS pd $250K+ 4 BS "statue" that was really a boulder. [...]
Do you suppose it would be considered art if I beat an artist half to death and photographed it? Everyone else tells me that all it is is a free trip to jail, but I think that they are just boxing in my ambition!
I'd pay to see it!!
I think Pollack paintings look really cool, but I'd never in my life (even if I had it to spend) waste a few million bucks on one when I could just make one myself.
You're a lot more than "a bit slow."
Maybe we could designate tea parties as "performance art". Then anyone who objects to tea parties can be called a racist.
But Gary, we wouldn’t have “Piss Christ.”
Yes, genius I would say. God bless Mr. Graham! Thanks Mr. Errorstein for complimenting one of my faves at BH!
Thanks for another superb posting, Mr. Graham! This exact line of thought is why I bombed out of art school some 20+ years ago. Well, babes and beer helped, but mostly, I just was so miserable around hordes of talentless "art farts", most of whom I assume have gone on to make some sort of living as "artists". And they were as liberal then as liberal gets, so I assume most of them still are. I just didn't fit in. Well maybe I just don't know what art is, but I sure do know whether I want to pay for it or not.
I recall the Dutch had a generous subsidy program for 'artists'. The state would buy paintings, sculptures, etc that the 'artists' couldn't sell to the public. The 'art' would end up on the walls of government offices. Eventually, there was so much subsidized 'art', that the government would simply store the stuff in warehouses, closets, etc.; where nobody would ever actally see it.
Great post Gary. Maplethorpe portrayed his own damage and we got stuck with the bill.
"where nobody would ever actually see it."
Kind of like Martin Creed's Turner Prize winning creation, “Work 227: The Lights Going On And Off” which consists of lights going on and off in a room.
Even when you see it, there's nothing to see. Might as well be in a darkened room.
This is what I call performance art…artistic talent melds with evocative content:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518XP8prwZo
Clearly the audience is moved. That's what performance art should be about.
FYI – The artist you are referring to is Robert Mapplethorpe, not "Maplethorpe".
There is some reason for the public to fund some artistic works. I believe our public buildings themselves are artistic works. The Lincoln Memorial for example is a good use of such funds. The artists that designed the building, created the statue, and completed the murals all need to be paid. I believe that other works of art that help to beautify our Capital Building and other public areas are good uses of funds. Of course these types of settings generally proclude artists like Mapplethorpe, so you won't see a fly eating poop on the rotunda, but you might see a nice painting of Washington and Madison.
I also make 'art' that are actually tools that people pay extra for because they like them.
Tax payers are cheated of the experience of finding something that moves them and the pride of owning a part of another one's soul through their work/imagination/creative abilities.
Instead, we get offensive items paid for by people afraid to mention the fact there is seldom 'art' involved in massive expenditures of tax money.
When you look at the G-20 protest and wonder how in the world so many unemployable people can show up far from home to raise hell at the 'system'. Ponder the NEA dollars involved.
Defund EVERYTHING not specifically called for in the Constitution.
Remember what Obama said (paraphrasing), "… the Constitution says what the government can't do for you, not what the government CAN do for you." That kind of translation of the Constitution is what makes me fear for the future of my country!
I'm just as offended by Thomas Kinkade as Mapplethorpe. One is a capitalist, one got funding from the NEA.
It's a slippery slope. If you cut funding for 'fine art', don't you also have to cut it for theater? Not all the work done because of funding from NEA grants is offensive. In fact, a lot of it is good. It would be great if working artists all had patrons, but they don't. NEA money is minimal and fiercely competed for. Do you really want to throw out the good with the bad?
Same thing in the U.S. during the New Deal–the WPA paid painters in NYC (including Jackson Pollock) to produce a canvas a week and collected it–good, bad, serious, crap thrown together the night before–and threw it all in storage. Most of it was later destroyed.
I have heard the argument that the arts need to be funded so America can continue to be a cultured Nation. Art can be described as acting, writing (books or scripts), singing, music, painting, sculpting and so many others forms that I'm sure I missed quite a few, but I don't see where the need for tax dollar subsidies comes in. If the artists are any good, the customers will let them know, that's America! I don't make the American people pay for my engineering endeavors, I sure don't want to pay for anyone to paint pictures I wouldn't hang in my crawl space!
Yes, she is amazing.If all or even most of the artists attached to the NEA were of her caliber the argument here would be less strident.
Wow, by the comments here that has already been done and exhibited?
Larry Flynt must be a financial genius. In the one and only Hustler I ever peeked into (terrible articles), people were sending in their photos for a cheap contest. Yeah, that kinda got seared into the grey matter, ouch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original intent of the NEA was to bring art to "art-impoverished" areas–for example small towns without art galleries, to schools without art programs, places like that. It was to bring art to the masses, rather than to commission artists. I believe that most people would have no objection to that. The NEA should provide the facilities, but not the stuff within the facilities.
Theater should work the same way. It costs a lot of money to maintain a concert hall, opera house, or theater. The NEA could cover the overhead, and there'd be no objection from me. But when the NEA funds a play that includes live coition, I have strong objections. I don't object to the play being shown in the theater, this is a country with free speech, after all, but the playwright should be paid according to his ticket sales. If the seats are empty, my taxes should not cover the slack.
Keep the arts programs in the schools, and keep the galleries open. But don't send my hard-earned tax dollars to artists who offend me.
That's all you've got? How about if you refute his actual argument? It should be easy, seeing as how he's "slow" and all.
Babes and Beer, huh? Excellent choices. Too bad the rest of your life was just wasted…
Holy crap. Now THAT was art!
Thanks, Gary! All my life I've been looking for a check for something that I dropped on the floor, something I stepped in on the sole of my shoe, something I blew into a tissue. You're working to cut off the funding and I have to quit living the life of an artist!!
Now I have to quit drinking beer for breakfast and stop sneering at people who don't 'get me.' I wonder what would have happened to Jackson Pollock if he hadn't drank beer for breakfast and sneering at people who didn't 'get him.'
"Hey Doc, I think you left your ring on..?"
"That's not my ring, it's my Rolex!"
Try the veal…
David —
Oh come on. Give me a better shot than that! Please tell me you're not just another Lefty eunuch with no spine or intellect to take on my argument with a little more wittier reposte than that pathetic offer! Come on, doodle-butt, hit me with your best shot. What… Too stoned and stupid to offer a resonable, dissenting point of view?
Yeah…I thought so.
David —
Oh come on. Give me a better shot than that! Please tell me you're not just another Lefty eunuch with no spine or intellect to take on my argument with a little more wittier reposte than that pathetic offer! Come on, doodle-butt, hit me with your best shot. What… Too stoned and stupid to offer a resonable, dissenting point of view?
Yeah…I thought so.
Great point…….The artists of yore found private benefactors to help support them. These benefactors had a great appreciation of art and had the means to support the artist. How can it be real art if it is procured at the barrel of a gun in the form of taxation. Maybe George Soros should be an art patron instead of a liberal politician's benefactor. Our country would certainly benefit.more if this were the case.
Hmm… I think there was a movie or two or three about this back in the 40's and 50's…. An American in Paris comes to mind right off the bat… That and Breakfast at Tiffany's (only that was a writer not a painter or sculptor and it was made in the 60's)
much of what is called art looks like something I could do. And since I believe myself to have no artistic ability, If I can do it it can't be art.
But there is a lot of stuff that is not done by highly skilled artists that still speaks to me.
So my rule is not hard and fast.
I like what I like and can't always explain why.
Some stuff that doesn't appeal to me is art and some stuff that I like is panned by the "learned" art world.
what does this all mean? If these no talent bums can make money, I ought to give art a try, it can't be any worse than some stuff out there.Who knows if I dedicate it to a "cause" or have imagery that my family would be embarrased by, i might make some money.
Why subsidize art? It's simple economics: art provides positive externalities.
Art provides more social utility than the free market would provide in natural compensation. By subsidizing art, one is able to not only get more art, but art that does exactly what is condemned in this blog post: it can explore the outer limits of human potential and creativity without having to simply please the whims of people with money.
And for me, I see that as a good thing.
that's pretty damn awesome. I bet you could get some halfway-decent art for cheap in ol' Holland. Not only that, but if you think about it, that created jobs.
Sorry…I'll give you some advice to make up for the burst bubble:
Marketing/Repackaging. Take a successful "artist", for example, Jackson Pollack and his splatter paintings. Since art is a process as well as a product, find a new way to do splatter painting. Co-opt the local paintball range for a day, cover the walls with canvas, and let the paintballers do your work for you. Let the millions roll in.
Or: Make a hamster walk over some wet paint, then apply hamster to canvas. The possibilities are endless.
That's one of the reasons I'm no longer a conservative (which is kind of like saying 'I used to be Catholic', I know). If your eyesight is so purely black and white, and the market shows you what's good art and what isn't solely by the profit it makes, then eventually Kinkade (not Kincaide) will rule the world, and we will only have mass-produced paintings (and furniture and lamps) like his to choose from.
If you want to cut all subsidies for the arts, then I hope you don't like dance companies, or the ballet – because these companies are always teetering on the brink of insolvency, even though they do tremendous work.
Please don't take this as a smackdown – it's an honest argument from a former member of the GOP.
Amen.
what about setting up a canvas underneath the Blue Man Group during a performance
and it could be a "collaborative effort"
Hey Gary according to the "learned" folk of the art world, you are not an artist because you do not make porn (that I know of).
Excellent article Mr Graham, the only thing I take acception to is actually giving money to mimes.
It does keep the argument for capital punishment alive among liberals however.
Gary, paid "art" is what the sponsor says it is, not really the "artist" themselves. The evil of the NEA is that artists are not individually eligible for grants but must be sponsored. In Chicago machine terms, "who sent you?" The NEA then cuts off all private sponsoring by not "certifying", similar to the Catholic Chuch Impromater, that whatever it is is "blessed" art. NEA grants themselves may not be that great money wise, but their "impramater" is required to get other sources together, and a project is dead without the "blessing". You are correct about a creative artist vs the NEA irrational system, but you should maybe follow the money to see its real evil.
Nah, it'll just be another dhimmicrat.
No Gary, he is just another drooling lefty eunuch (AKA a dhimmicrat) with nothing but pathetic ravings. So sad, I bet with a little effort two decades ago he could been a taxpayer.
Fortunate for us!
Yes. Darwinian effects will result in good art being produced.
So, what you mean is …..you can indulge yourself with taxpayer money despite the actual desirability of what you have created. If what you do is good, then people will find YOU. Otherwise, others are forced to subsidize your self-absorption, regardless of what you have "created".
Ick.
Gary,
LOVED the post. While I love art, and used to frequent many of the museums and galleries in LA (not much here in N. Texas) you are right. For thousands of years, art was financed by private benefactors, not the public. Why the change? I don't think I have ever read about any of the great artists of history, saying that their benefactors "stifled" their creativity. It is funny, as well, that one of the biggest benefactors of "art" in history, was the Church. Much of this, not "church related".
No, no, no. Put on your glasses and read it again. The 'outer limits of human potential' are not necessarily ONLY determined by money changing hands. What part of that don't you get?
Gary, you're attacking the easy target. Pick on somebody your own size.
20 years ago, i hung around with some students at the minneapolis college of art and design, awesome parties, hot chickies, and the music was loud enough that you didn't have to listen to them whine about their "art". good times.
well said…..
I dunno, you get enough mosquitoes on ya, blood loss can add up… And these little weasels always have little weasel pals to go cry to, a whole lot 'em can oh, say, affect an election. I think it's good for folks to face what's due their actions, don't you? And finally, dangit, I'm just sick of being polite when these frikkin' libtard nutjobs can say whatever they want whenever they want. So with all due respect, Gillian, please let your heart go drip somewhere else, this jackass Errorstein is all over BH today with one-shotters making attacks.
I was going to bring up a similar point. Governments and religions have paid for art for centuries. They would commission an artist for a sculpture, painting or whatever, and pay them for their work. I have no problem with Congress putting out a bill for the commissioning artworks. But it would be subjected to public scrutiny, debated and voted on. The NEA seems like a way to throw cash at useful idiots.
Tom,
Although you are correct, I didn't say anything about government, for the purpose you stated. A commission is different. It calls for a piece of art to be created under specific guidelines (subject, media, representation, etc…) where as most art funded by private benefactorsand the Church, throughout history, has been solely for the support of the artist. While some has been "commissioned" most was not.
The other problem with government "commissioned" art is the factor of propoganda. Much of this, in history, has been. While there are examples where it has not been for propoganda, monuments mostly, they are few and still have some leanings toward it (I know this doesn't sound too clear, I hope you understand what I am saying….. trained in Philosophy, not Composition).
The othe problem with government funding of the arts is the idea of fairness. Who decides ho gets money and who doesn't. Can you deny money to one "artist" and give to another? What is the criteria? Can you give it to only those who you agree with, and deny it to those you do not? Just too many questions and not enough answers.
"Do you really want to throw out the good with the bad?"
Well, call me a knuckle-dragging conservative, but yes. Yes I do.
Although I don't disagree with the main argument here – that there's a clear and definable difference between "art" and "offensive bullshit" – I wouldn't fund either one with public money.
"Limited size and scope of the Federal government" is an absolute, unwaiverable principle among authentic political conservatives. Subsidizing art is way outside of the scope of what the government should be involved in. And the beauty of that position is, I don't even have to decide something as esoteric as whether or not a particular "art" is worthy of being funded.
I wouldn't even fund a program that sent Yo Yo Ma on a concert tour of inner city public schools. At least, not with tax dollars. I would contribute to it as a private citizen.
And by the way, I don't think Kinkaide is taking any of that sweet government grant money. His "art" sells itself.
David, don't you get it? We're HOMOPHOBES, man, DAMN IT. You're the slow one. Wait, you do get it; you've already trotted out that tired BS at another post on this same topic.
Anyhow and anyway, if we could get those pesky gay men and women out of the art business, we'd be glad to forget our constitutional objections to the phoney baloney business of federally subsidized art.
We're just pretending to stand on principle, Dave (may I call you Dave?); but with your super-secret lefty BS detector, you knew that, right?
Contact ACORN for funding. Call it–"performance art". Take videos of it, send it to the NEA, call it "teaching a so-called artist a lesson" and apply for a grant! WHo knows????
I always thought, naively so, that the ultimate artist was independent from any kind of government interference. I always thought that a part of the mission of art was to reveal the foibles of the society at large and government as a whole. A theatre company I am working for at the moment has apparently taken stimulus package money from Uncle Obama and it's making me twitchy. As soon as you take money from the government or ANYONE else for that matter, you lose some of your artistic autonomy.
On the other hand, if we bought and paid for the Maplethorp "works" that means we own it and can therefore dispose of it in anyway we see fit. Anyone got a match?
Finally…thank you, Garry.
Finally…thank you, Gary.
"All art should be privately financed, period."
Forget the debate about what is or is not art. Would someone please tell me how financing artists is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government?
Gillian, are you referring to Kincaid selling offsets as original prints, and equating this to capitalism? Perhaps you’re half right, it’s also incumbent on the buyer to educate themselves as to what is an original print is, before they become an art collector. Many artist, not just Kincaid have sold offset posters, (photomechanical reproductions) in high editions with a signature as original prints, he got busted as did others and the free market corrected itself. As an aside it’s good for the framing business, and it allows people who can’t drop ten to fifty thousand for a painting to have a Kincaid, or whomever the artist.
Robert Mapplethorpe was a sleaze ball expositionist good riddance.
If you are any good the market will tell you.
How much?
I am tired of no nothings about art (actors included) ranting about artists and what is or isn't art…period!
If you want to have a discussion about tax payer dollars supporting art-that's one thing-but these tired old pissing (Serrano) and crapping (Ofili) on us artist rants-shoving (Mapplethorpe) the same three examples up or down our whatever from supposed intellectuals is doing the opposite of informing an already ignorant public. You are very wrong about how that all works and I dare say it is probably ok with you because it gets the kind of reaction you want. Why don't you comment on my posts? Why don't you conservatives support conservative artists? Why not give them the same publicity you give all these artists you don't like? You've made them rich! It's your attention that has skyrocketed them to heights they might not have seen if you did not focus on them alone and all the time. By the way-the artist who smears shit all over the canvas-does not do that!!! and he is a very, very talented young man who does great work! Have you seen one of his paintings in person? You might want, at the very least, to find out about him before you post another one of your rants on art. I should say I agree-for the most part-with you guys on tax money going to these institutions-but I'm sick of all of us being lumped together by ill informed-at best-people trying to make a good point. Stick to the point!
True. For the past 40 years the objective has been to "push the envelope." They haven't noticed that for the past 25 years or so that there's no 'envelope' anymore.
Paulo — Bollocks to you, sir, and a POX upon your house. Please set down the bong, for you have had quite enough!
Let us define our terms. (I already did, rather adroitly, but you are remiss, sir. Nut up, man!)
"social unity'? What's that — a stoned drum circle? The 'peaceful' demonstration at the G-20? (130 arrests)….what do you mean by 'social unity'? And what do you mean by "it can explore the outer limits of human potential and creativity without having to simply please the whims of people with money." ?? Did your parents drop you on your head a hundred times? Or are they college professors? If they are, I apologize, and your obviously Marxist dentencies are understandable. Not forgiven, just understandable.
Read George Gilder's WEALTH & POVERTY….if you have any huevos.
In the meantime…good luck with your Marxist utopian dream world.
Gillian — Both you and paolo are firmly in the grips of 'the outer limits' all right. We've got you on radar….and we're trying to bring you in for a landing on planet Earth….but man! There's so much FOG….and wow….it's fog that YOU guys are producing with your idiotic ideas. The problem with you even musing about 'the outer limits of human potential' is….you think that the GOVERNMENT is the best source of determining what that is, and how to reach it.
If that fact wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.
If all art ran on a sink or swim free market basis, there would be no art museums at all. There would be very little classical music or ballet performed. It seems odd to me that "conservatives" have so little interest in serious cultural pursuits. I thought you guys wanted to preserve the western canon of great books and all that. From reading these posts I get the impression that high culture means nothing at all to you. Fair enough, but I wouldn't really call that a "conservative" position myself. More like a radical anti-intellectualism .
PS—strictly going by market value Mapplethorpe did very well, while all those folks who invested in Kinkade are going to be very sorry.
I'm sure you're a nice person. But, right now, you are part of the problem. You are no better than the Liberals who tell me to 'tone it down' or 'paint my emotions and portray humanity' instead of all this angry political stuff I do. For goodness sake, woman, "you might sell something if you tone it down a bit". Channel this angry sniping behavior into something productive. Put up or shut up, as they say.
The only redeeming paragraph in your article came at the end. Art is a business. The government should not be involved. If you had started off on that foot, and said something positive, I wouldn't be writing this response.I agree with those two points 100%. Too bad you started with the same angry old argument. No offense, Mr. Graham, but you guys at Big Hollywood need to put your money where your mouth is. If you're serious about doing something, get in touch.
For the full article I wrote in response to this post, please visit http://www.modernconservative.com/liberatchik.php Out of respect for your followers and those who are commenting, I did not want to place my full opinion in your comments. I can be a little wordy. Also, if I haven't pissed you off too badly, look at my work and get in touch with me. I know where you can find some talented artists to promote http://www.machinepolitick.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.