3 ms·

> The NEA is about funding things nobody wants. That's an interesting perspective. I see it more as a tragedy of the commons situation. It's possible to mak

> The NEA is about funding things nobody wants. That's an interesting perspective. I see it more as a tragedy of the commons situation. It's possible to make important and influential art which is not commercially viable. NEA is great for funding art that wouldn't look good on a T-Shirt, but is beneficial to the culture as a whole.

tomjen3 14y ago
Is it? The majority of art created today isn't founded because it doesn't look good on a T-shirt. It is because it is crap. And you art doesn't have to fit on a T-shirt to be founded. Stories could be printed in beautiful books, movies and documentaries made available as high quality downloads, paintings as posters, etc. The only art you couldn't found this way would be art that didn't say anything to anybody. §100/year from 10 thousand people is a pretty good wage. If you can't get 10 thousand people to see something in you art, then it is properly because your art is crap.
- xorbyte 14y ago
  Is it? You equate financial viability with artistic value. But, there was Vincent van Gogh; large swaths of what we consider art today was commissioned by kings and popes and presidents on their dime, not sold or traded; it is virtually impossible, in the Kickstarter model, to fundraise sculptures and installations. I certainly don't think art needs an erudite committee approving it for 'value' (in a non-financial sense), but neither does it need to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, lest we want to limit ourselves to bazaar kitsch dolls and whatever else can be easily mass-made and sold. So while Kickstarter can certainly replace entities like NEA for many artists (many projects seem easier, logistically, to fund through KS) I don't know this says NEA is no longer needed.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    But that is the key issue, you are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Your quest is just to find a few people who like your art. The majority can hate it, consider you a witch and attempt to burn you at the stakes. All of that doesn't matter. Just that a few people like you.

tomjen3 14y ago

Is it? The majority of art created today isn't founded because it doesn't look good on a T-shirt. It is because it is crap. And you art doesn't have to fit on a T-shirt to be founded. Stories could be printed in beautiful books, movies and documentaries made available as high quality downloads, paintings as posters, etc. The only art you couldn't found this way would be art that didn't say anything to anybody. §100/year from 10 thousand people is a pretty good wage. If you can't get 10 thousand people to see something in you art, then it is properly because your art is crap.

xorbyte 14y ago
Is it? You equate financial viability with artistic value. But, there was Vincent van Gogh; large swaths of what we consider art today was commissioned by kings and popes and presidents on their dime, not sold or traded; it is virtually impossible, in the Kickstarter model, to fundraise sculptures and installations. I certainly don't think art needs an erudite committee approving it for 'value' (in a non-financial sense), but neither does it need to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, lest we want to limit ourselves to bazaar kitsch dolls and whatever else can be easily mass-made and sold. So while Kickstarter can certainly replace entities like NEA for many artists (many projects seem easier, logistically, to fund through KS) I don't know this says NEA is no longer needed.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  But that is the key issue, you are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Your quest is just to find a few people who like your art. The majority can hate it, consider you a witch and attempt to burn you at the stakes. All of that doesn't matter. Just that a few people like you.