Art and naked children

[Boxlicker101]

Box, do you suspect that perhaps there are only about two or three genuine trolls here, poor lonely souls who have no life and are thus forced into obnoxiousness for attention? I certainly do.

If you mean in AH, yes I do. There are other trolls who read stories in order to become pissed off at the authors, but they are probably not usually on this forum. Here is an example of what I mean:

Screw those who would whip a young girl
07/08/08 By: Anonymous
and those who got a hard on reading about it--May you get you chance to enjoy the receiving end of a whip

Well, you know the name of the story is "Tortured Maidens" and it is in the BDSM section and the description mentions whipping and there is a CAUTION at the start of the story, so what did you expect? Maybe you didn't read to the end of the story, but the bad guys didn't prosper.
__________________
100% smut or stroke with no redeeming social qualities

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hah! As in most of the posters in LW? Got that right. What left me scratching my head about the responses to the one story I wrote there is that a couple of guys seemed to want the protagonist to be cuckholded. I mean, WTF?

 

[starrkers]

I don't believe that.

There's a lot of people who call themselves artists but really are primarily controversialists. Depending on the political winds the number of these who make a living may increase or decrease with government subsidies, but private sponsors and buyers will always support some quantum of these.

Art used to be about celebrating "transcendental goods" - truth, beauty, the good. Beginning in the late 19th C the "intelligentsia" rejected the validity of those concepts, and artists began what ultimately became a project of making art ugly. Here's a great paper that describes all this detail: Why Art Became Ugly.

So what does all that have to do with government arts subsidies? The same "intelligentsia" who kicked off the project to make art ugly also tend to be statists and wealth redistributionists. Naturally they think taxpayers should pay to subsidize what they consider to be worthwhile "art." I disagree. I think it's unfair to force taxpayers to subsidize anyone's art. Unfair and unnecessary. Dangerous to the arts, too. Hitler subsidized a lot of painters and sculptors, as did Stalin.

That is certainly true of some sections of the Australian art world. Although I doubt there are many patrons willing to throw their money at the total wankers.

But definitely, without government help, many highly regarded "niche" forms would die out of this country.

As a specific example: Opera. Without government assistance Opera performances would cease to exist. The market is small and the costs of mounting productions large.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That is certainly true of some sections of the Australian art world. Although I doubt there are many patrons willing to throw their money at the total wankers.

But definitely, without government help, many highly regarded "niche" forms would die out of this country.

As a specific example: Opera. Without government assistance Opera performances would cease to exist. The market is small and the costs of mounting productions large.

You may be right. But how can it be fair to make Joe Sixpack subsidize the rarified tastes of a tiny elite? What's the moral case for this particular form of involuntary wealth redistribution? Isn't it just the hubris of an arrogant class of central planners, politicians and politically well-connected, self-serving special interests?

 

[starrkers]

You may be right. But how can it be fair to make Joe Sixpack subsidize the rarified tastes of a tiny elite? What's the moral case for this particular form of involuntary wealth redistribution? Isn't it just the hubris of an arrogant class of central planners, politicians and politically well-connected, self-serving special interests?

That's a well worn argument in this country, believe me.

I think the current rationale is that we need the "culture" to balance the football and beer brigade.
Personally, I tend to agree with you - if the elite want their "high art" let them subsidise it and let me pay lower taxes and enjoy my football and beer.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

That's a well worn argument in this country, believe me.

I think the current rationale is that we need the "culture" to balance the football and beer brigade.
Personally, I tend to agree with you - if the elite want their "high art" let them subsidise it and let me pay lower taxes and enjoy my football and beer.

You know, this works two ways. Good-sized cities have things such as ballet companies, opera, symphony orchestras and maybe some other things. The taxpayers foot most of the cost of these things, and that does seem unfair because very few actually benefit from them. At the same time, if that same city builds a sports arena and attracts a major league sports team, the taxpayers end up subsidizing them too. More people benefit but it is still subsidizing.

Either kind of enterprise pays something back to the city. The team or the opera company pays to use the facility and the city gets a slice of the revenues that come in from sale of tickets and refreshments, etc. They probably don't make a profit but it's also not a total loss.

There are other benefits to either kind of enterprise. A city is seen to be "major league" if they have a major league sports franchise. They are also seen to be "major league" in another way if they have a ballet or opera company.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You know, this works two ways. Good-sized cities have things such as ballet companies, opera, symphony orchestras and maybe some other things. The taxpayers foot most of the cost of these things, and that does seem unfair because very few actually benefit from them. At the same time, if that same city builds a sports arena and attracts a major league sports team, the taxpayers end up subsidizing them too. More people benefit but it is still subsidizing.

Either kind of enterprise pays something back to the city. The team or the opera company pays to use the facility and the city gets a slice of the revenues that come in from sale of tickets and refreshments, etc. They probably don't make a profit but it's also not a total loss.

There are other benefits to either kind of enterprise. A city is seen to be "major league" if they have a major league sports franchise. They are also seen to be "major league" in another way if they have a ballet or opera company.

Another thing that seldom gets noted is that a good museum in the city will actually draw more people than a sports team if only for the fact that schools take field trips to museums and those museums are open every day, all year. Sports teams only have a certain season and only play 1-2 times a week and not all of those games are at home. And, though it runs against sterotypes, there are plenty of people who like both. I don't happen to be one because the only professional sport I enjoy is rarely seen here. Go Springboks!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You know, this works two ways. Good-sized cities have things such as ballet companies, opera, symphony orchestras and maybe some other things. The taxpayers foot most of the cost of these things, and that does seem unfair because very few actually benefit from them. At the same time, if that same city builds a sports arena and attracts a major league sports team, the taxpayers end up subsidizing them too. More people benefit but it is still subsidizing.

Either kind of enterprise pays something back to the city. The team or the opera company pays to use the facility and the city gets a slice of the revenues that come in from sale of tickets and refreshments, etc. They probably don't make a profit but it's also not a total loss.

There are other benefits to either kind of enterprise. A city is seen to be "major league" if they have a major league sports franchise. They are also seen to be "major league" in another way if they have a ballet or opera company.

There's an aspect of "the seen and the unseen" to all this. The "seen" are the putative benefits from operas and stadiums that you describe. The "unseen" are the goods and increased wealth that might have existed except that resources that would been available to acquire them and provide the capital investment were taken and used for other goods, ones chosen by self-serving, politically well connected elites. The process creates a dead-weight loss - goods and wealth not created that are lost forever and to everyone - because of the inefficiencies this coercive process injects into the entire system.

Are there benefits to a polity of using coerced tax dollars to subsidize the stadiums and art works of the rich and powerful? Then why stop there? Why not build their palaces a pyramids? Doing so employs lots of people, after all. Just don't inquire too closely what all that labor and resources might have produced had those who earned the resources had been free to spend and invest them as they chose.

The conclusion of all that: Don't make judgements based on just "the seen." It's challenging, but use your imagination to think through what the true "unseen" costs might be, and never forget that deadweight loss. History suggests that the costs of such things always exceed the benefits - and that the political and social elites who lobby for those subsidies always have glib rationales ready to convince the masses that "this time it's different." Be verrrry skeptical.

 

[TE999]

That's a well worn argument in this country, believe me.

I think the current rationale is that we need the "culture" to balance the football and beer brigade.
Personally, I tend to agree with you - if the elite want their "high art" let them subsidise it and let me pay lower taxes and enjoy my football and beer.

I'll drink to that!

A few years back there was talk about cutting (eg: reducing the projected yearly increases) funding to PBS. You could have heard the intelligencia shrieking on the moon. Congress boldly retreated and the issue died.

Personally, I resent my tax dollars being used to broadcast moldy Britcoms, documentaries about the bake ovens of Latvia and annoying fuzzy puppets.

No profit...no broadcast.

 

[SlickTony]

I find it hard to take seriously the fulminations of people who complain about tax dollars to support arts that aren't necessarily to their taste.

Whatever is going to support the NEA or whatever is probably a drop in the bucket compared to what's going into the rathole of Iraq War II, which is funnelling money into the pockets of war profiteers. I hate to think of some of the other things that my tax dollars are going for.

 

[WRJames]

I've always had a problem with artists wanting "artistic freedom" AND a government subsidy. Censorship is one thing -- funding is another.

Frankly -- most of the stuff that passes for "art" at least modern art is ugly crap, as far as I'm concerned.

The photograph in question, though, at least has some asthetic merit.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I find it hard to take seriously the fulminations of people who complain about tax dollars to support arts that aren't necessarily to their taste.

Whatever is going to support the NEA or whatever is probably a drop in the bucket compared to what's going into the rathole of Iraq War II, which is funnelling money into the pockets of war profiteers. I hate to think of some of the other things that my tax dollars are going for.

If I were designated the Czar of All the Arts Grants I would still find it morally objectionable to take from others to subsidize my aesthetic preferences. If the amount earmarked were just one-trillionth of the amount used for all other governmental purposes that would not change the moral case (but I wouldn't put much energy into worrying about it, either. )

 

[neonlyte]

If I were designated the Czar of All the Arts Grants I would still find it morally objectionable to take from others to subsidize my aesthetic preferences. If the amount earmarked were just one-trillionth of the amount used for all other governmental purposes that would not change the moral case (but I wouldn't put much energy into worrying about it, either. )

It's an illogical argument. What's the moral case for funding science? What's the moral case for sending spacecraft to Mars? What's the moral case for Ethanol subsidies?

 

[NoJo]

Lesson for aspiring rock n rollers: How to make your album cover memorable:

http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/blind_faith.jpg

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's an illogical argument. What's the moral case for funding science? What's the moral case for sending spacecraft to Mars? What's the moral case for Ethanol subsidies?

If one believes in limited government, those are all good questions, with negative answers.

If one believes in good government - one in which taxpayers aren't looted for the primary benefit of special interest rent seekers - the last question (ethanol) is a particularly excellent one. If one has a properly skeptical view of government based on a sound understanding of human nature (men aren't angels, especially those who aspire to power) then it should also suggest that one consider more deeply the virtues of limited government.

For discussions sake I'll set aside my belief that government shouldn't fund basic science either (for one thing you get a lot of science-versions of the ethanol scam) but an argument can be made that it is a public good in the classic sense - provides insufficient benefit to a particular interest to generate private funding, but sufficient good in the aggregate to justify public funding because it increases the general welfare (when down the road applications of the research yield beneficial products, like drugs.)

I believe that about 95 percent of the space budget is about nationalist braggadocio and bureacratic immortality, the balance being basic science.

You have to stretch logic and the definition of public good too far for it to encompass making Joe Sixpack pay for the elite's opera house, or their "ugly art." Or a sports stadium for some billionaire. Etc.

Sorry Neon, but it just gets too subjective, and too politicized. You know what a big chunk of public art funding in the US goes to now following scandals regarding "ugly art" that spat on the values of much of the middle class? Summer Shakespeare productions in communities. They're harmless, get it? So why not take Joe Sixpack's money to fund them? Wrong question, here's the right one: Why take Joe Sixpack's money to fund them? In your answer please respond to the points I raised in post 58 of this thread regarding deadweight loss, and the "seen" vs. the "unseen."

 

[neonlyte]

If one believes in limited government, those are all good questions, with negative answers.

If one believes in good government - one in which taxpayers aren't looted for the primary benefit of special interest rent seekers - the last question (ethanol) is a particularly excellent one. If one has a properly skeptical view of government based on a sound understanding of human nature (men aren't angels, especially those who aspire to power) then it should also suggest that one consider more deeply the virtues of limited government.

For discussions sake I'll set aside my belief that government shouldn't fund basic science either (for one thing you get a lot of science-versions of the ethanol scam) but an argument can be made that it is a public good in the classic sense - provides insufficient benefit to a particular interest to generate private funding, but sufficient good in the aggregate to justify public funding because it increases the general welfare (when down the road applications of the research yield beneficial products, like drugs.)

I believe that about 95 percent of the space budget is about nationalist braggadocio and bureacratic immortality, the balance being basic science.

You have to stretch logic and the definition of public good too far for it to encompass making Joe Sixpack pay for the elite's opera house, or their "ugly art." Or a sports stadium for some billionaire. Etc.

Sorry Neon, but it just gets too subjective, and too politicized. You know what a big chunk of public art funding in the US goes to now following scandals regarding "ugly art" that spat on the values of much of the middle class? Summer Shakespeare productions in communities. They're harmless, get it? So why not take Joe Sixpack's money to fund them? Wrong question, here's the right one: Why take Joe Sixpack's money to fund them? In your answer please respond to the points I raised in post 58 of this thread regarding deadweight loss, and the "seen" vs. the "unseen."

Can't be arsed, Rox. No disrespect but you will never shift your opinion that government should not fund anything. The arts projects I get involved with embrace vast cross-section of communities, as I said near the beginning of this thread, the flaws are in the selection process, a point you chose to ignore because you cannot accept there should be any selection. I do sincerely hope you are so hypocritical as to attend any public funded event... but of course you do... you pay taxes, you're entitled

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Can't be arsed, Rox. No disrespect but you will never shift your opinion that government should not fund anything. The arts projects I get involved with embrace vast cross-section of communities, as I said near the beginning of this thread, the flaws are in the selection process, a point you chose to ignore because you cannot accept there should be any selection. I do sincerely hope you are so hypocritical as to attend any public funded event... but of course you do... you pay taxes, you're entitled

Neon - I'm not really concerned about the selection criteria. I don't get any more upset if the government funds Piss-Christ than if it funds Shakespeare. My point in raising that aspect is that the inherent subectivity and inevitable politicization should trouble anyone, not just limited government supporters like myself.

My real objection is a moral one, and the economic one described previously - the whole exercise makes us all just a little bit poorer, not richer, and the accumulation of many such non-core functions sucking resources from the private economy add up to a signifigant reduction in general wealth and economic growth. Absent such exactions, with the bigger, stronger economy that would exist from not suffering them, the arts would actually be more vital and better funded. It's the same old syndrome - we spend all our energy squabbling about dividing up the pie rather than growing it.

That's why I'm a supporter of limited government, plus the experience since the dawn of civilization that more government = less individual liberty. You're right, I'll never support these non-core functions that government takes on, because in the end they only make us poorer and less free. One doesn't have to take all that long a view to discern that.

 

[neonlyte]

Neon - I'm not really concerned about the selection criteria. I don't get any more upset if the government funds Piss-Christ than if it funds Shakespeare. My point in raising that aspect is that the inherent subectivity and inevitable politicization should trouble anyone, not just limited government supporters like myself.

My real objection is a moral one, and the economic one described previously - the whole exercise makes us all just a little bit poorer, not richer, and the accumulation of many such non-core functions sucking resources from the private economy add up to a signifigant reduction in general wealth and economic growth. Absent such exactions, with the bigger, stronger economy that would exist from not suffering them, the arts would actually be more vital and better funded. It's the same old syndrome - we spend all our energy squabbling about dividing up the pie rather than growing it.

That's why I'm a supporter of limited government, plus the experience since the dawn of civilization that more government = less individual liberty. You're right, I'll never support these non-core functions that government takes on, because in the end they only make us poorer and less free. One doesn't have to take all that long a view to discern that.

I can't accept that argument, Roxanne. Every government in the developed world supports the Arts. They do so in recognition that the days of individual patronage have long since passed and that the general benefit to society outweighs the cost to society. Of course every government in the developed world may be wrong, and you may be right, that the arts might flourish if the small sums expended upon it were used to increase 'wealth' and that increase in 'wealth' would, in some small way, promote the arts. The worlds leading galleries are vast businesses serving millions of customers, some charge admission fees, some buy catalog's and items of commerce in the gallery shops. Most eat or drink in the leading galleries because it has become a 'day out' event.

Individuals feel as you do - less free, choking on what you perceive as waste; societies embrace art as part of their culture... the few occasions when an exhibit excites adverse reaction deepens discussion about 'merit' within the framework of artistic relevance. Arguing over 'the subsidy' is usually a tabloid tactic and always reflects on the subsidy committee rather than the artist.

On a final comment: the question of 'indecent images' rises almost annually at some location around the world. Invariably the exhibition is canceled, often a judicial or police inquiry begins - it is a very long time since any prosecutor decided a work of art infringed 'decency' sufficiently to merit a court hearing. Exactly the same has happened with the subject of this thread, i.e. the police decided there was no case to answer.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I can't accept that argument, Roxanne. Every government in the developed world supports the Arts. They do so in recognition that the days of individual patronage have long since passed and that the general benefit to society outweighs the cost to society. Of course every government in the developed world may be wrong, and you may be right, that the arts might flourish if the small sums expended upon it were used to increase 'wealth' and that increase in 'wealth' would, in some small way, promote the arts. The worlds leading galleries are vast businesses serving millions of customers, some charge admission fees, some buy catalog's and items of commerce in the gallery shops. Most eat or drink in the leading galleries because it has become a 'day out' event.

Individuals feel as you do - less free, choking on what you perceive as waste; societies embrace art as part of their culture... the few occasions when an exhibit excites adverse reaction deepens discussion about 'merit' within the framework of artistic relevance. Arguing over 'the subsidy' is usually a tabloid tactic and always reflects on the subsidy committee rather than the artist.

On a final comment: the question of 'indecent images' rises almost annually at some location around the world. Invariably the exhibition is canceled, often a judicial or police inquiry begins - it is a very long time since any prosecutor decided a work of art infringed 'decency' sufficiently to merit a court hearing. Exactly the same has happened with the subject of this thread, i.e. the police decided there was no case to answer.

Support of "the arts" by government is more a habit than anything else, and dates back to the time when "the government" was the king or queen and other nobles.

Personally, I don't think there should be ANY National Endowment for the Arts. The reason is that there is no individual qualified to decide what is ART. I certainly don't believe the Piss Christ is, and I doubt if any but a very few would disagree with that opinion.

I also have to wonder why the FEDERAL government is involved with building stadia or opera houses or anything else of that sort, except maybe in DC. Did the feds foot the bill for Comiskey Park in Chicago? Why should they? If the taxpayers and voters in Illinois or Cook County or Chicago want to pay for it, that is their business, but why should everybody in the country have to pay, when only a few benefit?

I'm not particularly singling out that specific park; that was just the one that came to mind.