5 ms·

If you value material such as this >… The White House has requested that Congress appropriate $33.4 million to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

by mzs 7y ago

If you value material such as this >… The White House has requested that Congress appropriate $33.4 million to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for the orderly closure of the agency. … https://www.neh.gov/news/neh-statement-proposed-fy-2021-budget https://www.neh.gov/news/neh-statement-proposed-fy-2021-budg...

rayiner 7y ago
Closure of the agency, along with the NEA, is long overdue. The arts and humanities are politically vastly outside the mainstream of American culture. As a result, there is no practical way for these agencies to operate. If the government doesn’t carefully oversee how the money is used, you end up with a government funded platform for academics and artists to peddle fringe views. There is something deeply wrong about using public money to fund something that has neither functional utility nor aesthetic value to the majority of the public. The alternative is even worse. If the government does actively curate the work funded by these agencies, you end up with propaganda: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/is-the-neh-worth-keeping https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/is-the-n....
- arcticbull 7y ago
  “Government funded culture” is literally how all of Europe and Canada pays for their culture. Art tends not be a profit driver, but provides intrinsic social value and therefore thrives when funded socially. The problem isn't where the money comes from, there may well be need of a "Chinese wall" setting out how it's used, but tearing it down isn't the answer. [1] https://www.nfb.ca https://www.nfb.ca [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Canadian_Heritage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Canadian_Heritag...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > Government funded culture” is literally how all of Europe and Canada pays for their culture America isn’t Europe. For one thing, it’s not nearly as culturally homogenous. More Americans want their state to leave the union (about 1 in 4 nation wide) than people in Basque Country want independence from Spain (about 1 in 6). The French have an idea of what “French culture” is and what’s desirable about it. Americans have highly divergent views on what is American culture or what’s desirable about it (or even if anything is desirable about it). In practice, the NEA and NEH end up funding not “American culture” but “coastal urban culture.” Now, I happen to like coastal urban culture. My wife and I take the kids to the MOMA when we’re in NYC. But a federally funded agency picking sides in an active and ongoing culture war is wrong. The government shouldn’t be putting a thumb in the scale when it comes to influencing the evolution of culture. But that’s exactly what NEA and NEH end up doing in practice. They hand an elite cultural minority a $300 million a year platform.
    - Ohn0 7y ago
      Is it really the governments job to fund culture? I think there are plenty of folks willing to contribute without the need for tax dollars.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Maybe. However, that yields art in the private interest. The people shouldn't have to hope for the scraps of the upper class to showcase their culture. Ultimately, this leads to exactly what the parent is worried about: a culture of the coast for the coast. I doubt that the "coastal elites" are out in Louisiana and Nebraska paying for art galleries, or even interested in showcasing rural work in urban galleries. That's solved via broad-based social contributions.
        cvwright 7y ago
        > a culture of the coast for the coast. The people who don't like the NEH / NEA are arguing that that's what they're getting already. Only now, the people in Lousiana and Nebraska are being forced to pay for it as well.
        munk-a 7y ago
        The people on the coasts don't get any benefit out of rural broadband initiatives but it got funded anyways... People outside of the eastern corridor don't benefit from I95 being resurfaced, people outside of texas don't benefit from national park funding there. The US is a country, not everything directly benefits everyone - the NEH and NEA actually do funnel quite a bit of money into the center of the country, but their funding is lopsided toward urban centers because those are the locations that attract and can sustain artists. But, tomorrow, someone from LA can head to NY, become an artist, and work on qualifying for a grant - they can secure a grant where they are if they can demonstrate their research topic and get in contact with the NEH.
        Ohn0 7y ago
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Maybe Europe needs the government to pay for their arts, because Europeans are less likely to donate money to charities and non-profits than Americans: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generou...
  - cvwright 7y ago
    It's easy to like the idea of "government funded culture" when you can reasonably expect they will fund things that you like or that you agree with. Now imagine that some Trump appointee comes in and declares that their theme for 2020 will be "AMERICA FUCK YEAH". They're going to fund a bunch of 1960's style "cowboys and Indians" movies about brave settlers who conquered the West. Then would you still be as comfortable with the concept? Most people here would not.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Being educated in the humanities seems to encourage a lot better critical thinking in students along with supplying society with art and culture for an absolutely insignificant amount of money. The cost of granting 3k to an artist to build a golden toilet statue with the constitution on a toilet roll is so incredibly insignificant compared to the cost of curtailing critical thinking abilities - especially for a country that is so reliant on it for continued economic health. Private sources decently fund these things, but public money makes sure we have a diversity of artists. Those artists certainly do include those peddling fringe views, in fact, from a certain angle, we've all got fringe views - exploring that diversity does us all a service.
Ohn0 7y ago
It appears this is only a reproduction from the original source: > From City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism by Abram C. Van Engen. Published by Yale University Press in February 2020. Reproduced by permission.
- mzs 7y ago
  literally two lines below that >Abram Van Engen received a Research Fellowship and a Public Scholar grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, which supported his book City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism (Yale University Press, February 2020).
  - Ohn0 7y ago
    Wow I missed that. Does the author profit from sales of the book in addition to being paid to write it?

by mzs 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

Closure of the agency, along with the NEA, is long overdue. The arts and humanities are politically vastly outside the mainstream of American culture. As a result, there is no practical way for these agencies to operate. If the government doesn’t carefully oversee how the money is used, you end up with a government funded platform for academics and artists to peddle fringe views. There is something deeply wrong about using public money to fund something that has neither functional utility nor aesthetic value to the majority of the public. The alternative is even worse. If the government does actively curate the work funded by these agencies, you end up with propaganda: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/is-the-neh-worth-keeping https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/is-the-n....

arcticbull 7y ago
“Government funded culture” is literally how all of Europe and Canada pays for their culture. Art tends not be a profit driver, but provides intrinsic social value and therefore thrives when funded socially. The problem isn't where the money comes from, there may well be need of a "Chinese wall" setting out how it's used, but tearing it down isn't the answer. [1] https://www.nfb.ca https://www.nfb.ca [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Canadian_Heritage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Canadian_Heritag...
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Government funded culture” is literally how all of Europe and Canada pays for their culture America isn’t Europe. For one thing, it’s not nearly as culturally homogenous. More Americans want their state to leave the union (about 1 in 4 nation wide) than people in Basque Country want independence from Spain (about 1 in 6). The French have an idea of what “French culture” is and what’s desirable about it. Americans have highly divergent views on what is American culture or what’s desirable about it (or even if anything is desirable about it). In practice, the NEA and NEH end up funding not “American culture” but “coastal urban culture.” Now, I happen to like coastal urban culture. My wife and I take the kids to the MOMA when we’re in NYC. But a federally funded agency picking sides in an active and ongoing culture war is wrong. The government shouldn’t be putting a thumb in the scale when it comes to influencing the evolution of culture. But that’s exactly what NEA and NEH end up doing in practice. They hand an elite cultural minority a $300 million a year platform.
  - Ohn0 7y ago
    Is it really the governments job to fund culture? I think there are plenty of folks willing to contribute without the need for tax dollars.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Maybe. However, that yields art in the private interest. The people shouldn't have to hope for the scraps of the upper class to showcase their culture. Ultimately, this leads to exactly what the parent is worried about: a culture of the coast for the coast. I doubt that the "coastal elites" are out in Louisiana and Nebraska paying for art galleries, or even interested in showcasing rural work in urban galleries. That's solved via broad-based social contributions.
      - cvwright 7y ago
        > a culture of the coast for the coast. The people who don't like the NEH / NEA are arguing that that's what they're getting already. Only now, the people in Lousiana and Nebraska are being forced to pay for it as well.
        munk-a 7y ago
        The people on the coasts don't get any benefit out of rural broadband initiatives but it got funded anyways... People outside of the eastern corridor don't benefit from I95 being resurfaced, people outside of texas don't benefit from national park funding there. The US is a country, not everything directly benefits everyone - the NEH and NEA actually do funnel quite a bit of money into the center of the country, but their funding is lopsided toward urban centers because those are the locations that attract and can sustain artists. But, tomorrow, someone from LA can head to NY, become an artist, and work on qualifying for a grant - they can secure a grant where they are if they can demonstrate their research topic and get in contact with the NEH.
        Ohn0 7y ago
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Maybe Europe needs the government to pay for their arts, because Europeans are less likely to donate money to charities and non-profits than Americans: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generou...
- cvwright 7y ago
  It's easy to like the idea of "government funded culture" when you can reasonably expect they will fund things that you like or that you agree with. Now imagine that some Trump appointee comes in and declares that their theme for 2020 will be "AMERICA FUCK YEAH". They're going to fund a bunch of 1960's style "cowboys and Indians" movies about brave settlers who conquered the West. Then would you still be as comfortable with the concept? Most people here would not.
munk-a 7y ago
Being educated in the humanities seems to encourage a lot better critical thinking in students along with supplying society with art and culture for an absolutely insignificant amount of money. The cost of granting 3k to an artist to build a golden toilet statue with the constitution on a toilet roll is so incredibly insignificant compared to the cost of curtailing critical thinking abilities - especially for a country that is so reliant on it for continued economic health. Private sources decently fund these things, but public money makes sure we have a diversity of artists. Those artists certainly do include those peddling fringe views, in fact, from a certain angle, we've all got fringe views - exploring that diversity does us all a service.

Ohn0 7y ago

It appears this is only a reproduction from the original source: > From City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism by Abram C. Van Engen. Published by Yale University Press in February 2020. Reproduced by permission.

mzs 7y ago
literally two lines below that >Abram Van Engen received a Research Fellowship and a Public Scholar grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, which supported his book City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism (Yale University Press, February 2020).
- Ohn0 7y ago
  Wow I missed that. Does the author profit from sales of the book in addition to being paid to write it?