supporting the arts

"Fifty million dollars for the culture of this country is cheap at the price. It's less than the cost of a single fighter plane, for example. I'm not against national defence, I just want something to defend." –Mavor Moore, 1919-2006

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
"Fifty million dollars for the culture of this country is cheap at the price. It's less than the cost of a single fighter plane, for example. I'm not against national defence, I just want something to defend." –Mavor Moore, 1919-2006

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.

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.

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
>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 ...[text shortened]... re talking about. It is not necessary for one to like it for it to be defined as art.

Of course this is an age old and vexing problem. Indeed no one can define art exactly because of it being so subjective. Your examples clearly validate your point. However, it is somewhat less hard to define what art isn't. I truly doubt that after the pass of time a crucifix floating in urine will gain acceptance as "misunderstood art" of the past. These specialists in "dung" art are hardly comparable to Beethoven, Bruckner and others. I was in the Santa Fe, NM Museum or Art a few years back. They had a wooden plank with hanging used sneakers off it. Perhaps if it is something that looks less like garbage one might be impressed. Thousands of years from now when archeologists find this "wondrous" quasi-art, I sincerely doubt they will be awed or even consider it anything other than the garbage it is.

Dislike of certain art does not define its lack of worth. Try more along the lines of revuslion. Not liking Stravinsky at first is one thing. Repeated hearings make us come to realize the true genius and how far ahead of his time he was. Repeated viewings of "dung" art can hardly accomplish the same. On the contrary, it may make one mad at the sponsor so duped as to dare display repulsive things posing as art. It is such displays that repel those of us who might otherwise contribute to the arts. My youngest now attends a dedicated arts high school. The kids are allowed great latitude in expression of their creativity. Controversial pieces are displayed all the time, yet up to now none of it has been sacrilegious, repellent, nausea inducing, smelly or insulting. There's great hope indeed! Indeed the citizens of Dallas contributed vast sums for the creation of the new building and adjacent gardens to the tune of close to $100M.