Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I fully support the arts, but when some of those monies go to subsidize crucifixes floating in urine, Madonnas decorated with elephant dung and other similar repugnant quasi-art then I prefer the fighter jet. I say that's better spent money. Of course I'm talking about USA since I have no idea if Canada is more selective in which "art" they support.
>The problem of course is to define what is meant by "art." It's not easy to identify, and I always point to the criticism Beethoven's music received when it was first performed. His music was considered trash and he was considered insane. The reception Stravinsky's Rite of Spring received at its premiere is well known. This can be seen in all the arts because literature, painting, and others get these attacks too. However, in the course of time when people live with that art for a while, then its genius and value become apparent.
>Nevertheless, in one of the orchestras I was in, one time we played Bruckner's 4th Symphony and several people in the audience wrote letters the next day to our management complaining of all this "modern" stuff we play. They had no idea Bruckner's music was more than 100 years old and that he was quite traditional in what he wrote. Obviously they had not even read the program notes.
>Anything new is often seen as being junk. Some of it is of course, but how do you tell the difference? When someone tells me that they know what they like and this is not art, I respond that they don't know what they're talking about. It is not necessary for one to like it for it to be defined as art.