🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bjones-091292160427@130.13.26.216> bjones@denitqm.uswest.com (Brent Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.142911.14125@syma.sussex.ac.uk>,
>mapd1@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nigel Ling) wrote:
>> 
>> I agree, art is created in spite of govts, not because of them. But
>> that doesn't mean a "cultured" society should necessarily leave
>> the artists to struggle to survive. Poe, for example, was I think
>> desperately poor all his life. Artists should at least have the
>> chance to make a living from their work. Otherwise art will surely
>> become more and more marginalised, as I think is already happening,
>> as time goes on.

>How would you recommend that artists be given this chance to make a living?
>Should they be paid a monthly stipend after applying for "artist" status at
>
>the local Ministry of Culture? "I'm sorry Mr. Smith, but we must reject
>your application. Although your soul does indeed seem to be tortured, the
>Standardized Test of Unbridled Potential for Inspired Dogma reveals
>that you have the artistic talents of a rutabaga. Next!" 
>
>Who decides what art is worth subsidizing, and what art isn't? I don't want
>Uncle Sam making that choice with *my* bucks.

With respect this is not I was suggesting. For artists to be able to
make a living means providing a climate in which they can do so -
ie a society which values art and artists. In my other post I mentioned
that a literary magazine in England is partly supported by a grant from
a public body. If this grant did not exist the magazine would be
unlikely to survive, and hence there would be one less outlet for
writers of serious literature. So writers are not paid to write, but
there are buyers for their work.

>
>I don't believe society or the government *owes* anyone a 
>living for choosing to pursue private avenues of investigation like 
>art and writing. If the resulting product is something others are 
>willing to pay for,fine. The artist makes his or her living. 

But the point is a writer must get into print before others will
buy the work. If there is no support for literature then it is
in danger of being swamped by all the pulp. Some may think this
would be no bad thing: I don't.

>If not, too bad. Or should we all be forced by the government to
>arbitrarily 
>buy a certain number of works of art each year? This is what the funding of
>artistic endeavors with tax money amounts to.

Well, we all pay taxes and no doubt we all object to the way some of
the money is spent. It all depends on one's values.

>
>Private foundations and grants are, of course, a different story.
>
>Don't mean to sound harsh, but as a writer of fiction I've published a few
>stories and never made a penny, and will probably never make a living with 
>my craft. So perhaps I should whine, "But....but...I *write* these stories 
>and nobody *pays* me for it. No fair!" 

What you might be justified in whining about, however, is the lack of
opportunity to publish.

Nigel