AP NEWS Update: Garland Texas shooting at Mohammed comic contest

[The Sound Guy]

 

I do appreciate your thinking regarding the cuts in funding for the NEA ... and find it a novel argument and a good one.

 

It is not the conservative argument or libertarian argument I would expect, though.

 

My understanding of the conservative argument, though, is that the government has no business whatsoever in funding art of any kind, any where, any time (Unless it is for decoration of a federal building and you're an influential legislator and can steer the commission to a friend, of course - that exception obviously being the exception that conservatives can and do make.) Usually conservative-driven commissions go to the most successful artists and they want the 'best' art for their project so the project funds, because they enrich the wealthiest and most successful artists, is not redistributive in nature.

 

For liberals, of course, the funding of art by government is part of a general and broad-based promotion of art of all kinds for all purposes and serves also the purpose of providing economic support for a traditionally economically deprived class of folks called artists (aka: redistribution.)

 

Your argument fits neither; rather asserts that government shouldn't insult anyone and therefore must turn its back on all art as someone might be insulted.

 

I can only surmise It is based on the notion that the artist is, by their nature, compelled to create art of their own choice and it is decision whether they do commissions of things they are paid to do or choose to produce art that is non-commercial knowing that if they go crazy, cut their ear off or otherwise act in odd and bizarre ways and they die a pauper because of that choice, it adds to the value of their art for those who buy and trade in it. Vincent Van Gogh and Mozart being models of the great artist because they died paupers. Andy Worhol being an example of a wealthy 'commercial' artist whose passion was, while weird, to get others to actually put the paint to paper in his quest for greater income.

 

Still, it is a novel argument.

 

pubby

 

To me, it's not an argument for or against govt art, it's an explanation of why funding gets cut.

 

Art of a type is supported, *somebody* gets ticked off, often a a large group who end up attacking their representative asking why they are allowing the govt to support such "filth" (or whatever). The Politician, no matter what the party, doesn't want to lose votes, so they make a few speeches and agree with others who have had their voters do the same thing, to reduce the funding.

 

I would estimate that 95%+ of all politicians, no matter what the party, are mainly interested in getting re-elected. The few that truly believe in doing what is best for the country, don't last in office long.