http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm Curious that they would want to make art stupid. I suppose if they can make you believe a highly polished turd in the middle of Chicago is art, you'll believe anything. The destruction of morality and all basis of morality is less subtle.
I know art. It's simple. If I look at it and think "That's amazing" it's art to me. If I look at it and say "Were they on Acid?" that is not art to me. The Thinker - Art. Random blocks of Steel - Not Art. Random blocks of steel assembled into a monolithic structure with a meaning (lets say cars being like Stonehenge) 50/50.
And that's the funny thing about art. If I think the artist was on acid, that is a recommendation. While "the Thinker" is a totally uninspiring image to me-how the hell can you think in that uncomfortable position? The statuary is technically proficient in a realistic aesthetic, but really pales next to Hindu sculptures and painting... Everyone thinks they know good art when they see it, but disagreement is universal.
As long as the art isn't government funded; artists can polish turds all they want. If the work can survive in the free market like everything else; that's good enough for me. End government funding of art and let's see what stands up.
I could do the so-called "art" many of these "artists" do, splash paint around to get the same effect of a child painting
I love those black velvet pictures of Elvis, now that is true art! I like to hang my Elvis picture right next to the big picture of the dogs playing poker...
Cleon Skousen was a famous anti-communist crusader. That isn't some communist policy statement, that's like the protocols of the learned elders of communism
There is a woman that really knows what she wants, she probably never even bothers to try to say she has a thyroid problem!
We in the U.S., to my knowledge, are the only nation among the western industrialized nations that does not have a national arts program. Please do not bring up the NEA as an example; we have no National Theatre, no National Opera, no program that stands as our valued national beacon in the arts. No less a conservative than Edmund Burke saw the value in a national tradition of excellence in the humanist, artistic disciplines. Our tax dollars go to fund many things that not all of us want, so this isn't a religious argument (religious, in the sense of an all or none philosophy). It is a shame that we stand alone in this way.
So you don't agree that art is just another commodity that should exist in the free market? You think people should be paid to create polished turds (as someone stated earlier), even if no one ever wants to look at them or pay to at least see them?
Like I said, let's not make a religion out of this. Were I to do so, I'd say, "why not make everything free market?" How about education? Get rid of public education completely, and may the best market win!" Let's be reasonable. Forgetting, for now, that we never were and never will be a "free hand" market economy (please see: the collusion of central state power with heavy industry, at the inception of our national push to industrialization), it must be patently acknowledged that there are public goods in our society. What we may argue over is not the concept, but exactly what constitutes a public good. Foregoing "piss Christ" or "polished turds," how about something like performed, full-blooded Shakespeare in every school, over teaching it as some read, dessicated iambic pedantry from a dead guy? How about a national theatre, such that those of the most limited means have access to both the classics and new works of great artists? It's not communism. It's a conservative concept, stretching to at least Edmund Burke. On this, I gladly reach across the aisle and shake his Tory hand.
Eh, screw it all. Americans can't appreciate art anyways. Good riddance to art and understanding programs in schools - all we need are blunt resources who know math, English, and history. To hell with Art, Music, and PE. /Sarcasm
Have you guys ever been to the Met? I would say its not boring at all. Have you guys ever been to any Art Museums, galleries or exhibits?
I am the former Artistic Director of a Shakespearean company, that provided training at cost to Chicago actors; also involved with its predecessor which mounted, among other things, Hamlet, casting current and former Boston gang members as cast members..."to be or not to be" means something beyond dead words - for both the actor and the audience (who came to see this young kid speak these words). I believe art, in all its forms, is vital to life. We are more than pale imitations of automatons, mere beings of conveyance.
That's school. That is different. I'm talking about paying some guy to sit around and polish turds, never sell anything to live on his own, and essentially become a leech. That's what I'm talking about. Outside of the educational system. Shakespeare was part of a traveling theatre right? I believe that was privately financed, wasn't it? Absolutely nothing stops or prevents the same thing here. I've been to plays more than a few times that are free; where they make money from concessions, donations, etc. I'd much prefer that sort of set up. Some huge building (a la stadiums) that sits empty most of the time I don't think is a good reason to tax people. Stadiums, theatres, etc, I think all fall under private enterprise and should be taken care of privately, not pubicly.
School is publically funded. Beyond, "education" means many things, to many different people - and I would venture there are many things you might disagree with, for which you nevertheless pay taxes. How about museums? Get rid of them - public monies. Again - you don't want public goods, refuse to pay taxes. There are public goods, and we all pay for them. We may argue over what constitutes them, but not the concept itself. Yes, along with an institutional home in the National Theatre (of Britain, for example), the Royal Shakespeare Company, or the like across all - all - of Western Europe (national opera companies, national museums of art, etc.); ourselves excluded. Absolutely not. The Royal Shakespeare Company, for example, is a national theater funded by public funding. As hard as it might be to accept, we stand alone in refusing to make a national priority in this way.