Pelosi lays into Bush

[HaemishM]

The FCC is not talking about rating and displaying ratings. They are out and out talking about punishing people for saying words whether the show is labeled as racy or not. And they are doing it in such a ham-fisted, stupid way that it makes them look really silly. First they say that Bono saying "FUCKING BRILLIANT" is ok, since he isn't actually talking about the sex act, then months later they say "Well, no really that's not ok." Too late.

As for art, Warhol is shit, and I'd rather see the turd in a decanter than his garbage any day of the week. As for canned turds, there's plenty of art I don't agree with and don't like, but I firmly defend the rights of the artist to make that, with or without government funding. Art is a very necessary expression of freedom; if you don't believe me, look at the first thing most dictatorial regimes do. They destroy, alter or censor the art and history of a culture, because those things tell the truths that we sometimes DON'T want to face about ourselves and our culture.

[Aslan]

I agree with you, Haem, except for the govermental funding of artists part.  It IS your right as a free person to express yourself artistically in pretty much any way you choose.  But, consistent with my earlier libertarianish statements, nowhere in the Constitution is there stated or implied that every idiot that pisses on a cross is entitled to goverment money.  I think the entire concept of goverment funding of the arts is ludicrous.  You don't want the goverment in the bedroom with you, why would you want them hanging out in your studio?  A true artist creates because the impetus to create is overwhelming, and you would be an artist no matter what, but I don't see how that translates to a citizen-funded government bearing the responsibility to keep your pasty ass in ramen noodles til you hit the big time...

[HaemishM]

Once the money is given to the artist, that ends the government's right to bitch about what the artist produces unless the government says it gets first right of "This sucks, you hack - get a day job" in the fine print.

I would agree with you about the government funding individual artists with grants, myself. I think it's a bad deal all around. I'd rather the government funded organizations that educate and display starving artists' work, like they did in the Mapplethorpe exhibit scandal. But then, I wouldn't fund an individual artist's career anyway. That's just bad business. Having been in art school with other artists, I wouldn't trust most of them to manage a shithouse, much less my money. They tend to spend as much money on cheap wine and ramen as on actual art supplies.

[Aslan]

And to me, it's not so much about making artists suffer or some dreck like that, artists are unique and usually brilliantly eclectic people, but it's about finding ways to do a thing, and not having or expecting some kind of deus ex machina intervention, i.e. Uncle Sam with a fat check for your bad ass.  Hell, in the old days, artists found rich people and sucked off of THEM.  I am all for that.
As to funding exhibitions and things, I think you will find that real art will always find a venue, and a way to be shown, it doesn't require the federal goverment to intervene.  Again, I like art, and I don't ever want the arts to be discouraged or in anyway hindered, this is much more for me about limited, and by virtue of that fact, less-powerful government.

[Margalis]

Funding for the arts in schools and stuff is fine with me. I do tend to agree that working artists don't deserve government money though. Most artists that have made a large impact on society either didn't benefit from government money or didn't need it.

If the government funds random artists, it opens the door to tons of other questions. What about garage bands, carpenters, etc? What about other people who vaguely enrich society? Street preachers?

Then again, the money we spend on the arts is pretty trivial, so practically speaking I don't care much either way.

[Dark Vengeance]

And to me, it's not so much about making artists suffer

Maybe it should be. Some believe the best art in the world comes from pain and the appreciation of simple things that most of us take for granted. The "starving artist" covers both of those bases, and seems to make for better art.

After all, who is going to paint a better picture of fruit...a guy that just finished a steak dinner, or a guy that hasn't eaten in 3 days?

Seriously, I'm all for funding art programs and education about the various arts. I'm not really for the government funding professional artists, unless they've been hired to do a portrait or whatnot.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............