🚀 go-pugleaf

Bonita Kale writes:

> I said:

>> It is the responsibility of government in a free
>> society to protect the voices of its unpopular
>> artists.  In a capitalist system, I believe that
>> protection extends into the realm of economics.

> I dunno--my main problem with government support for literature is that
> support is control.  If you have a benevolent government, the control may
> not be exercised, but it exists none the less.

The limit of that control is denying funding, which
simply leaves the artist or writer to search elsewhere.

> I'm not even sure it -shouldn't- be exercised.  I feel that how I spend my
> money can be a moral choice; why shouldn't how the government spends our
> money be a moral choice, as well?  In other fields, I demand moral
> consideratiions influence government actions--why not in art?

Because it's not the business of our government to pass
moral judgement on free expression.

> It's okay as long as grants are tiny things, to help, but not to
> support.  But what happens when you become dependent on them?  Then you
> knuckle under or cease producing, right?

This is a specious argument.  For one thing, grants often
*do* support artists while they are working on projects.
In a captalist society, people are paid for the work they
do.  Art is essentially a public works project, and should
be paid for, much like rail systems or parks.  Not everyone
who pays for a rail system will use it.  Does that mean
it shouldn't be built?  At some point, the government decides
what is in the public's interest.  Government subsidy of art
ensures that a diversity of voices are heard, including
unpopular ones.  Easy access to diverse expression is in
the interest of the public in a free society.

Second, "knuckle under" to what?  I have news for you: 
trenchcoated representatives of the NEA do not coming 
knocking on your door at 3 AM, demanding to read your
drafts. ("You say you're a writer, well write somethin'!")

The worst that can happen is that our artists will simply
*leave*, and take up residence in more enlightened countries.

> The marketplace, of course, can be as hard as the government, but it has
> the advantage of being more fragmented and less organized.

Hmpf.  I see it the other way around.

> "art" (I hate the term, but I don't know another) 

It's a lovely term.  'Been around a while, too.
"Things that display form, beauty, or unusual 
perception."  'Works for me, anyway.

>that at one time
>were vilified by the populace, versus those that were embraced by the
>populace and vilified by the knowledgeable. 

It's interesting that you view this as a class struggle
of some kind, with artists presumably representing a shadowy
"cultural elite".  In the case of Stravinsky, *everyone*
hated "Rite of Spring", especially the critics.  Art
is perfectly capable of turning institutions on their
ear, with or without the initial support of the "populace".
This is why artists and writers are the first to lose
support (and eventually their freedom) in a repressive
society.


			Robert.

---
"Life is beautiful.  Artists, writers, or performers who want to inflict
disgusting, homosexual, erotic, satirical or political images upon the
public should have their xxxxx grants cut off."

				Guerrilla Girls