Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. 25 Feb '08 23:15
    Do you think "artwork" should be bought with public funds? There is some weird sort of sculpture downtown by the library and what I (not-so-)lovingly refer to as the mutant clothespin sculpture at the University. They've been there quite a while, but I vaguely remember helping pay for both, albeit unwillingly.

    So do you think public funds should be paid for what someone decides is art? Or should there be some other system, like a voluntary checkbox on the tax forms for donations, or fundraisers, etc.?
  2. 25 Feb '08 23:19
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    Do you think "artwork" should be bought with public funds? There is some weird sort of sculpture downtown by the library and what I (not-so-)lovingly refer to as the mutant clothespin sculpture at the University. They've been there quite a while, but I vaguely remember helping pay for both, albeit unwillingly.

    So do you think public funds should b ...[text shortened]... other system, like a voluntary checkbox on the tax forms for donations, or fundraisers, etc.?
    I guess it depends if the 'art' is really being put there for people to consider and discuss, or if it's there to fill an open space.
  3. 25 Feb '08 23:37
    Originally posted by Starrman
    I guess it depends if the 'art' is really being put there for people to consider and discuss, or if it's there to fill an open space.
    Ahh, I hadn't thought of that. Good point! I had figured it was there to declare a fake sense of "having culture." Look at us! We are classy! We have a colorful hunk of metal in our yard!
  4. Subscriber huckleberryhound
    Devout Agnostic.
    25 Feb '08 23:47 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    Do you think "artwork" should be bought with public funds? There is some weird sort of sculpture downtown by the library and what I (not-so-)lovingly refer to as the mutant clothespin sculpture at the University. They've been there quite a while, but I vaguely remember helping pay for both, albeit unwillingly.

    So do you think public funds should b ...[text shortened]... other system, like a voluntary checkbox on the tax forms for donations, or fundraisers, etc.?
    Some public bought art provides a message, namely that art means more to politicians that the health of their people, or the education of their children. There must be a balance, however. Without art, we are merely drones for the state, and if the state can fund the promotion of art, without censor, maybe it is a good thing.

    Is the sculpture any good ?
  5. 25 Feb '08 23:48
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    Do you think "artwork" should be bought with public funds? There is some weird sort of sculpture downtown by the library and what I (not-so-)lovingly refer to as the mutant clothespin sculpture at the University. They've been there quite a while, but I vaguely remember helping pay for both, albeit unwillingly.

    So do you think public funds should b ...[text shortened]... other system, like a voluntary checkbox on the tax forms for donations, or fundraisers, etc.?
    On the whole this kind of thing - in my opinion - should be encouraged - regardless of your own opinions about what constitutes "good" art.

    In France (I believe this is the case - but I have no proof to offer), when a building is put up a percentage of the cost of the building has to be put into "public art / culture". By doing this "art" becomes more mainstream and available to everyone.

    The converse argument would be to ban "bad" art - but who is to say what's good and bad. You are never going to achieve concensus on that point. Would the world be a better place without any art at all?

    More art is to be encouraged.
  6. Standard member rbmorris
    Vampyroteuthis
    26 Feb '08 00:05
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    Do you think "artwork" should be bought with public funds? There is some weird sort of sculpture downtown by the library and what I (not-so-)lovingly refer to as the mutant clothespin sculpture at the University. They've been there quite a while, but I vaguely remember helping pay for both, albeit unwillingly.

    So do you think public funds should b ...[text shortened]... other system, like a voluntary checkbox on the tax forms for donations, or fundraisers, etc.?
    Funny you bring this up. I took a "test" on Facebook (political compass) last night where they asked the same question. I answered, "yes" because I generally approve of most efforts to support the arts. I support tax breaks for museums and other cultural institutions---even public funding. With that in mind, I understand that different people have different ideas of what art is, or should be.

    If this sculpture is as much of an eyesore as you say it is, maybe there needs to be a better way of deciding what goes where. I imagine there were at least a few different designs that were proposed. I wonder if the people who made the final decision, had any background in this area.

    You never know what people will say in 50 years, though. Some of the most groundbreaking artwork encountered a lot of resistance at first.

    Side Note: I used to work at an office complex where the landlord erected (no pun intended--well maybe) a huge statue of Michaelangelo's "David". You wouldn't believe the amount of flack he got for it. OMG, you can see his penis!!!
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    26 Feb '08 00:28
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    Do you think "artwork" should be bought with public funds? There is some weird sort of sculpture downtown by the library and what I (not-so-)lovingly refer to as the mutant clothespin sculpture at the University. They've been there quite a while, but I vaguely remember helping pay for both, albeit unwillingly.

    So do you think public funds should b ...[text shortened]... other system, like a voluntary checkbox on the tax forms for donations, or fundraisers, etc.?
    There are many, many things that my tax dollars go toward that I object to. But I do not have a line item veto on how my taxes are spent. My representatives in Congress do that. If I don't like the way they spend my tax dollars, I'm free to vote for someone else.

    Now, if you accept the principle of public financing for the arts (which I do), then you cannot dictate the content of that art. It must be free to take its own course. Otherwise you end up with sterile, state approved art, like "socialist realism" in the Soviet Union. If some artwork gets financed that you dislike, well, that's too bad.
  8. 26 Feb '08 00:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There are many, many things that my tax dollars go toward that I object to. But I do not have a line item veto on how my taxes are spent. My representatives in Congress do that. If I don't like the way they spend my tax dollars, I'm free to vote for someone else.

    Now, if you accept the principle of public financing for the arts (which I do), then you ca in the Soviet Union. If some artwork gets financed that you dislike, well, that's too bad.
    The conversation is about the principle of public financing of the arts. I thought perhaps the title conveyed that. My bad.

    I disagree with the concept because only certain visual arts are supported. I have not heard that authors or individual musicians are publicly funded; they are reliant on the market economy. But painters and sculptors receive hefty public funding. (I'm guessing that local symphony orchestras are funded to some degree.)


    http://www.travelphotobase.com/f/AZTIX/AZT031.HTM

    http://www.arizona.edu/tours/artworks/
  9. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    26 Feb '08 00:37
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    The conversation is about the principle of public financing of the arts. I thought perhaps the title conveyed that. My bad.

    I disagree with the concept because only certain visual arts are supported. I have not heard that authors or individual musicians are publicly funded; they are reliant on the market economy. But painters and sculptors recei ...[text shortened]... y orchestras are funded to some degree.)


    http://www.travelphotobase.com/f/AZTIX/AZT031.HTM
    Artists in Ireland are exempt from tax.

    D
  10. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    26 Feb '08 01:08
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    The conversation is about the principle of public financing of the arts. I thought perhaps the title conveyed that. My bad.

    I disagree with the concept because only certain visual arts are supported. I have not heard that authors or individual musicians are publicly funded; they are reliant on the market economy. But painters and sculptors recei ...[text shortened]...

    http://www.travelphotobase.com/f/AZTIX/AZT031.HTM

    http://www.arizona.edu/tours/artworks/
    Musicians can rely on a market economy because you can make infinite copies of a CD, which can then be priced well within the budget of almost everyone. Likewise, you can print infinite copies of a book. In both cases, it is not the tangible object that is the artwork, but what went into it. You simply can't do that with sculpture or painting, where the tangible object is the artwork (although you can make limited editions in some media). That object, being singular, or of a limited quantity, is simply too expensive for the majority of people. So painters and sculptors will have to rely on institutional buyers to a far greater degree.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    26 Feb '08 08:22
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Musicians can rely on a market economy because you can make infinite copies of a CD, which can then be priced well within the budget of almost everyone. Likewise, you can print infinite copies of a book. In both cases, it is not the tangible object that is the artwork, but what went into it. You simply can't do that with sculpture or painting, where the tan ...[text shortened]... e. So painters and sculptors will have to rely on institutional buyers to a far greater degree.
    You can make prints of paintings.
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    26 Feb '08 11:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    You can make prints of paintings.
    That's not the real thing, though, is it? It's a reproduction. I have a reproduction of Munch's "The Scream" hanging in my bathroom. The framing cost more than the image.

    Now, I'll grant you that you see this phenomenon of "limited edition reproductions", but artists who take that route are relying on the market to sell their work. They aren't the type that's getting public funding.
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    26 Feb '08 11:53
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Musicians can rely on a market economy because you can make infinite copies of a CD, which can then be priced well within the budget of almost everyone. Likewise, you can print infinite copies of a book. In both cases, it is not the tangible object that is the artwork, but what went into it. You simply can't do that with sculpture or painting, where the tan ...[text shortened]... e. So painters and sculptors will have to rely on institutional buyers to a far greater degree.
    Very well put.
  14. 01 Mar '08 01:53
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There are many, many things that my tax dollars go toward that I object to. But I do not have a line item veto on how my taxes are spent. My representatives in Congress do that. If I don't like the way they spend my tax dollars, I'm free to vote for someone else.

    Now, if you accept the principle of public financing for the arts (which I do), then you ca ...[text shortened]... in the Soviet Union. If some artwork gets financed that you dislike, well, that's too bad.
    I wouldn't call these "sterile", whatever else one might say about them. Obviously propaganda which is sterile appeals to nobody.

    http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/train.jpg

    http://davno.ru/img/posters/propaganda1/poster_01_81.jpg

    http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/1223.jpg

    http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/0292.jpg

    http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/3034.jpg

    http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/el/pix/auss2.jpg

    http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/1307.jpg

    http://bp2.blogger.com/_NzHG4HjtdwI/RsHdeZy265I/AAAAAAAAADg/JTu_tl-e3E4/s1600-h/2004.jpg
  15. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    01 Mar '08 03:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Mark Adkins
    I wouldn't call these "sterile", whatever else one might say about them. Obviously propaganda which is sterile appeals to nobody.

    http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/train.jpg

    http://davno.ru/img/posters/propaganda1/poster_01_81.jpg

    http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/1223.jpg

    http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/0292.jpg

    http://p ...[text shortened]... g

    http://bp2.blogger.com/_NzHG4HjtdwI/RsHdeZy265I/AAAAAAAAADg/JTu_tl-e3E4/s1600-h/2004.jpg
    Is this a joke? Those are the very epitome of sterility. Maybe you should just leave the art to the artists and concentrate on accounting, or whatever your professed 'specialty' is.

    There are examples of Soviet art that are quite interesting, but you haven't stumbled upon them yet.