5 ms·

National funding is for things that can't get done by themselves. If kickstarter works for you, you don't need NEA there are plenty of valuable art undertakin

National funding is for things that can't get done by themselves. If kickstarter works for you, you don't need NEA there are plenty of valuable art undertakings that do not have public appeal. that is what the NEA should be doing.

noonespecial 14y ago
I don't mean this as snark. When it comes to art, if nobody wants it, why is it valuable?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Some aspect of the national zeitgeist wants an egalitarian approach to elitism? Since "elite" artists that only appeal to the very few are seldom market winners, we (politically) recognize they are the "little guy" and desire to given them a hand against the torrent of the commercial art market. I admit, it all sounds so strange; we tell ourselves that just because we don't admire their product, the problem must be with us, and we can overcome our unworthiness by public support. Or maybe they just have good lobbyists?
- czr80 14y ago
  Same reason basic research is mostly funded by the state - there are things that are valuable to a society that no one individual will pay for.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    Other than the claim that perhaps radical or unpopular art might inspire further art creation or bring joy to a small group who desire this kind of art, which I suppose has some value, what value does NEA funded art have to society as a whole? I certainly don't know anyone who benefits from it, which makes it nothing at all like research.
- newobj 14y ago
  You should have just gone with the snark, it would have made your comment less dumbfounding.
- haliax 14y ago
  It's possible that the art in question is ahead of its time, or expresses radically unpopular ideas. I'm not saying that a piece of art that no one ever cares about after it's created is valuable, but it's hard to judge the value of art based on current popularity. Plus, the judgement of popularity is influenced by the culture at a given time, and the existence of a given work or works might have a pretty big impact on the course of that culture's evolution -- regardless of its initial ability to gain funding. There are also the practical difficulties of making sure that the funding request gets in front of the people who'd appreciate the work in question, and that they have the money to be able to afford to donate, and that they're not disinclined from donating for reasons that have nothing to do with the artwork in question (e.g. they think kickstarter is some phishing site, or think there's no point since they can only give a very little bit).
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    You would have to express an idea that you couldn't get 10 thousand people to support with 100 usd. In the entire world. That seams a pretty damming statement against your art, from my point of view.
    - cdcarter 14y ago
      Two words: educational programming.
  - jerf 14y ago
    So, we can't judge art by whether it's popular, we can't judge it by whether it's aesthetic, we can't judge it by X... at what point does the NEA simply become indistinguishable from handing money to whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants as long as the recipient does something or other? This is the government. Men with guns come and take bits of my life that I have traded for money away to fund this. If you're willing to go to that length, I'd appreciate some sort of metric whereby the NEA can tell whether or not they're even getting anything for their money, let alone whether it's worth it. I know it's really tempting to just deny any metric of worth can be applied to art, but if you nail art down to the point where only .01% of the population can appreciate it and we have to fund it because the plebians won't.... where's the public interest in this? (Also, I'm not claiming the NEA has no such standards. Actually I quite believe it does, and in the end those standards are what people actually object to. I'm saying that it isn't viable to continuously keep falling back, saying "No, that's not what art is, no, that's not what art is, no, that's not what art is". This is something taxpayers are funding with their sweat and blood... if they aren't getting anything that can even be vaguely defined without someone challenging that vague definition, then it should just be shut down.)

noonespecial 14y ago

I don't mean this as snark. When it comes to art, if nobody wants it, why is it valuable?

sageikosa 14y ago
Some aspect of the national zeitgeist wants an egalitarian approach to elitism? Since "elite" artists that only appeal to the very few are seldom market winners, we (politically) recognize they are the "little guy" and desire to given them a hand against the torrent of the commercial art market. I admit, it all sounds so strange; we tell ourselves that just because we don't admire their product, the problem must be with us, and we can overcome our unworthiness by public support. Or maybe they just have good lobbyists?
czr80 14y ago
Same reason basic research is mostly funded by the state - there are things that are valuable to a society that no one individual will pay for.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  Other than the claim that perhaps radical or unpopular art might inspire further art creation or bring joy to a small group who desire this kind of art, which I suppose has some value, what value does NEA funded art have to society as a whole? I certainly don't know anyone who benefits from it, which makes it nothing at all like research.
newobj 14y ago
You should have just gone with the snark, it would have made your comment less dumbfounding.
haliax 14y ago
It's possible that the art in question is ahead of its time, or expresses radically unpopular ideas. I'm not saying that a piece of art that no one ever cares about after it's created is valuable, but it's hard to judge the value of art based on current popularity. Plus, the judgement of popularity is influenced by the culture at a given time, and the existence of a given work or works might have a pretty big impact on the course of that culture's evolution -- regardless of its initial ability to gain funding. There are also the practical difficulties of making sure that the funding request gets in front of the people who'd appreciate the work in question, and that they have the money to be able to afford to donate, and that they're not disinclined from donating for reasons that have nothing to do with the artwork in question (e.g. they think kickstarter is some phishing site, or think there's no point since they can only give a very little bit).
- tomjen3 14y ago
  You would have to express an idea that you couldn't get 10 thousand people to support with 100 usd. In the entire world. That seams a pretty damming statement against your art, from my point of view.
  - cdcarter 14y ago
    Two words: educational programming.
- jerf 14y ago
  So, we can't judge art by whether it's popular, we can't judge it by whether it's aesthetic, we can't judge it by X... at what point does the NEA simply become indistinguishable from handing money to whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants as long as the recipient does something or other? This is the government. Men with guns come and take bits of my life that I have traded for money away to fund this. If you're willing to go to that length, I'd appreciate some sort of metric whereby the NEA can tell whether or not they're even getting anything for their money, let alone whether it's worth it. I know it's really tempting to just deny any metric of worth can be applied to art, but if you nail art down to the point where only .01% of the population can appreciate it and we have to fund it because the plebians won't.... where's the public interest in this? (Also, I'm not claiming the NEA has no such standards. Actually I quite believe it does, and in the end those standards are what people actually object to. I'm saying that it isn't viable to continuously keep falling back, saying "No, that's not what art is, no, that's not what art is, no, that's not what art is". This is something taxpayers are funding with their sweat and blood... if they aren't getting anything that can even be vaguely defined without someone challenging that vague definition, then it should just be shut down.)