Quincy Jones' Petition to create a Secretary of the Arts

[JGriffin]

which is why you just ridiculed an opinion that differs from the official line of the current administration...way to support the highest form of patriotism there duder.

Right you are. After rereading my earlier comments... Even before Dwlb called me on it I was thinking about it, trying to rationalize the irrational. Bad day? So what? You had nothing to do with it. Facts and/or opinions aside, my attitude sucked.

Because of our shared passion about audio, I like to think of everyone here as a friend. I was always taught to deserve my friends, and today I blew it. I'm truly sorry.

Er. Yeah. Sorry about that, man. I was being a dick as much as anyone.

[Jeff White]

I guess my problem with an Art Czar is that, well, I don't want government defining what art is. That gets a little weird, ya know?

I do, however, believe that we need more arts in schools. So if this is what the Art Czar is going to manage, I would think that it would fall under the Department of Education. I like what Canada does, from what I understand of it. Grants for artists to make records and stuff. Like a living wage? Not sure if this is a loan or a grant. Maybe some of our Northern friends could chime in.

And the Paula Abdul was a bad joke. Herbie would be great. So would many other fine artists.

Oh man... come to think of it... Keith Richards should be Art Czar!!! If only...

Jeff

[CurtZHP]

I guess my problem with an Art Czar is that, well, I don't want government defining what art is. That gets a little weird, ya know?


Jeff

That's what I'd be worried about. The whole "He who pays the piper calls the tune" thing.

[JGriffin]

I guess my problem with an Art Czar is that, well, I don't want government defining what art is. That gets a little weird, ya know?


Jeff

That's what I'd be worried about. The whole "He who pays the piper calls the tune" thing.

I have a similar concern, but from a different angle. I'm concerned that the association of certain art with government money will open it up to censorship in ways it would not have been otherwise. For example: is "Piss Christ" art? And does it deserve to be publicly shown? Not for me to say. But once someone's tax dollars are paying the artist and the taxpayer is disturbed/dismayed/offended by the piece in question, there's additional leverage (in the form of "not with my money/Not in my name") to remove that piece of art from view. (Likewise the work of Mapplethorpe, whose gay/S&M-themed photos drew so much fire in Ohio a few years ago. Ditto any piece of art that is religious, to those in our culture who do not subscribe to the religion in question or any religion.)

As an example of this in another arena, witness all the hoopla over whether to display the Ten Commandments in front of Court buildings--in a country that constitutionally forbids an establishment of state religion!

To an earlier point, sadly eclipsed by the flame war: dissent is indeed an important part of patriotism. But we clamp down on dissent during times of war (this is not a partisan comment--read "Perilous Times" by Geoffrey R. Stone for examples throughout history of censorship and 'dissent=treason' rhetoric on both sides of the political coin), so the question is begged: can and will the government support art that is critical of the government? And again, will the constituency go along with that?

[CurtZHP]

+1


I think government beauracracy needs to stay out of the arts. The private sector is more than capable of supporting them.

Most great works of art or music were created for the simple reason that someone was paid by a patron to create them.

[JGriffin]

+1


I think government beauracracy needs to stay out of the arts. The private sector is more than capable of supporting them.

Most great works of art or music were created for the simple reason that someone was paid by a patron to create them.

Though often, admittedly, that patron was the King. Or the Medicis...

[CurtZHP]

+1


I think government beauracracy needs to stay out of the arts. The private sector is more than capable of supporting them.

Most great works of art or music were created for the simple reason that someone was paid by a patron to create them.

Though often, admittedly, that patron was the King. Or the Medicis...

Or the Church. (a whole 'nother can of worms!)

[chris harris]

Is censorship a big problem in Europe, where the governments often (heavily) subsidize the arts?

[JGriffin]

Is censorship a big problem in Europe, where the governments often (heavily) subsidize the arts?

Good question.


Of course, they're a lot less hung up than we are...

[Smayniac]

+1


I think government beauracracy needs to stay out of the arts. The private sector is more than capable of supporting them.

Most great works of art or music were created for the simple reason that someone was paid by a patron to create them.

I'm in Curt's camp here, although I don't agree with everything he says. A new government bureaucracy is not likely to help the funding situation for the arts in this country. I live in the San Francisco bay area and we have had one theater organization file for bankruptcy and two others engage in emergency fundraisers to keep the doors open. These were mainstream organizations not small or community based groups. The government has never shown itself to be an efficient provider of funds on the micro level.

On the other hand, the private sector in this area has little history of funding the arts; Packard Foundation aside. There was other discussion of the history of patronage, it need not be repeated here. The artist who cannot or will not produce commercially viable material may continue to suffer in obscurity and hope for history's vindication. Mona Lisa after all was the portrait of the patron's wife, the artist working on commision has little choice of subject.

just my small thoughts on the matter,

Bob

[cfMC]

Government Art? No Thanks

[JGriffin]

I live in the San Francisco bay area and we have had one theater organization file for bankruptcy and two others engage in emergency fundraisers to keep the doors open.

ditto here in the midwest; Milwaukee Shakespeare has closed its doors and one of the really big non-Equity theater companies in Chicago has sent out several rounds of fundraising letters.

[jakeao]

I think the whole Secretary of Arts is just a little too Orwellian for me. Sure under the current administration it might be cool, but what happen the next time we get some born again religious nut into office?

[Gentleman Jim]

One of the main reasons other countries spend money on the arts is to promote their homegrown talent. I remember from touring Europe in the early 90's there was a band that would turn up on almost every festival bill called Inchkabotables, or something like that. My faulty memory of them was as being this bizarre 12 piece traditional Laplander folk/prog rock/nu metal band with folk costumes and traditional dancing. Anyway, the story I heard somewhere was that whatever country they were from was paying their way to go spread the word that rock from their country was vibrant and exciting. I wasn't convinced, I thought the rock they were playing was confused and overdone.

So do we really need that? Do we need the US equivalent of Canadian Content? Generally speaking, the rest of the world is trying to emulate our artistic output. Keep in mind I'm speaking of popular culture here.

As for the 'pure' art that doesn't have a commercial following, We do have the NEA. Maybe we could shut down a few of our military bases around the world and throw the excess millions their way. http://www.nea.gov/

But having an actual artist as the head of a cabinet level department? That's just stupid. No matter what the bureaucracy is charged with doing, it's still a bureaucracy. Get somebody in there who knows how to run a department.

One last OT thing - what the hell is up with all these Czars? When did we turn into 19th century Russia? The idea of a Czar is that there's no check on their power; which, if I remember correctly from seventh grade, is against the entire founding purpose of this country.

[BenjaminWells]

I thought Obama re-framed the "Big vs. Small" government argument rather well by suggesting a smarter one. To me, smart government is one which supports arts education. Shouldn't our kids know who Louis Armstrong was? How about Duke Ellington? John Coltrane? Ask any 12 year old in France who these guys are, and they know. Ask any 12 year old in this country, most don't. That's a failure that we as a nation, community and/or industry can scarcely afford. Here's an article which makes the point:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03264.html

As for the use of Czar for everything... I agree it's over used, even though it's meant to be funny