Is commercialism or self indulgence a greater threat to "art"?

[neal_shields]

If �art� touches something in a broad range of people, it will be commercially successful, if it doesn�t it won�t. The taxpayers subsidize much of today�s �art�. After over 50 years of life, I have begun to be able to detect, by just looking, �art� that can�t stand on its own commercially.

 

<p>

 

I take pictures of what interests me and helps me tell the story, that I want told. I agree with those who say that they �want to� and �enjoy� taking picture number 413,942,975 of Half Dome. To my mind, not even St. Ansel, �captured� Half Dome, but maybe 1000 years from now, some Girl Scout with that day�s Brownie will. (Won�t we all be surprised if it looks best shrouded in a cloud of pollution?) When you pay for the camera and film, what you �want� is the only justification that you need. If you want someone else to pay for the camera, film or rent, then you should be able to find at least one other person that is willing to use resources that they created, from the sweat of their brow, to subsidized your efforts at �art�. I don�t count finding someone that is willing to say that your �art� is good enough to subsidize with MY money.

 

<p>

 

Wouldn�t �art� be better served if, instead of dispensing tax dollars to a politically well-connected elitist few, we just used the money so that every American could set aside one day to do �art�?

 

<p>

 

In America, at least, if you�re not willing to support your own artistic efforts by living the minimalist life style that can be obtained by working 20 hours a week cooking burgers, then maybe the problem isn�t what it costs to practice art, it is that down deep, you agree with the market.

 

<p>

 

Neal

[david_f._stein]

A few years ago, American Photographer run an issue of snapshots done

with point and shoot cameras by "average," non-professional,

consumer-grade, didn't think they were artist Americans. They were

superb and demonstrated the vitality, energy, creativity, interest in

life and passion of Us Folks. Here, technology triumphed, acquiring

that seemlessmess between the thought "I'd like to get a picture of

this" and the eloquent results. Photography is in good hands-and

digital cameras will bring back or help preserve the spontaneity and

fun of family and personal "not really for sale" photogra

[ellis_vener_photography]

Commercial success cannot be and should not be the judge of

aesthethic merit or "artistic' content or value to a society. <P>Why

is this? let's consider a different realm of artistic endeavor:

music. Do you really bealieve that Michael Jackson or Brittney

Spears is more important than recordings of work by Ludwig Van

Beethoven's or Aaron Copland symphonies? Yet if you go by a

criteria of what is commercially successful, those two "pop"

stars sell more recordings in a week than the entire field of

classical music sells in a year. <P>let's look at another field of

"artistic" endeavor: the movie business. a movie like "Deep

Throat" has made more money (i.e. been more commercially

successful) than all ofthe great movies you can think of. Possibly

in terms of the return to the original investors, possibly it has

been more commercially successful than any other movie ever

made. As a matter of fact the entire "sex industry" generates

more money than all other forms of entetainment. Maybe we

should stop building sports stadiums, movie theaters, concert

halls and art museums andinvest in brothels instead.<P> I could

go on, but I think you can follow the thread of my argument. Your

argument is specious on the surface and hollow on the inside.

Like porn and pop music it has shiny surface appeal but no

substance. This isn't to denigrate porn or pop music, both

actually have entertainment value, but the argument you are

advancing is nothing but corrosive to any long range societal

values. I just don't think that giving back the approximately ten

cents a year that the average American citizen spends on

"subsidizing" the arts in this country is going to encourage

anyone to spend "one day" devoted to "doing' art. <P>Just

because you or even possibly most American citizens don't

immediate "get" a Philip Glass symphony, or a Diane Arbus

photograph, or a quilt made by some woman in the West

Virginia hills, doesn't mean it won't have value to others or even

the majority of our society and culture a hundred years from

now.<P> No one photographer is going to "capture" Half Dome

(and by the way you do know that Ansel Adams was supported

by US goverment commissions for much ofthe cretive part of

hios career?) .On the other hand maybe you are on to

something. What have really gotten out of the subsidy of space

exploration except for Tang? and all this money we keep on

spending on weapons, I mean really , what a waste. let's just

drop the H-bomb on whoever annous us. Much more efficient

don't you think! And the highways 7 bridges and other types of

infra structure: Who needs to go anywhere now that we have

Television and the world wide web? And isn't it abouttime that we

stopped underwriting religion and got rid of the tax exempt status

of the major religions. Think of all that property that could be put

to better use, maybe as revenue generating brothels! And finally,

doesn't everybody know that smoking cigarettes causes cancer,

so why should we haveto pay for more cancer research? And

damn it I'm tired of having to go through my life without ever

tasting Whopping Crane. If nature cannot survive without a

fedearal subsidy than maybe extinction is a good idea.<P>Ten

cents a year is what you spend on subsidizing the arts. Wow

what a high price, what an onerous burden.

[neal_shields]

I think another way of phrasing my question would be: do we get

better �art� because we subsidize people to do it, that could do it

on their own, if they were willing to make the personal sacrifices

that it took? (�You have to suffer if you want to sing the blues�)

If someone doesn�t think that their own �art� is worth personal

sacrifice, then how as a society can we ask the auto mechanic with

three children to support someone else�s �art�?

 

<p>

 

I would, for example, feel more comfortable subsidizing fine art

glass than photography, on the theory that no amount of personal

sacrifice will enable the average person to afford the equipment that

it takes to make works of art in glass.

 

<p>

 

The moral issues of taking the fruits of someone else�s labor and

subsidizing something that enough like minded friends think is

important, is useless to debate logically.

 

<p>

 

Some government expenditures provide virtually universally utilized

services to individuals. In America, you benefit from roads even if

you don�t drive. As wealthy and envied as this country is, most

Americans can be said to benefit from national defense.

 

<p>

 

The space program separated from national defense, could to my mind,

be classified as �art�. What else would it be? However, if all one

got out of the research that funded the space program is Tang, then

they must live in a cave and eat bugs.

 

<p>

 

The Constitution basically provides the Federal Government with the

authority to collect taxes and provide services, that everyone

benefits from, and that cannot be provided otherwise. Even that can

be said to be on moral thin ice.

 

<p>

 

Taxes are collect by threat of implied force. You either think it is

ok to use force to subsidize art, or you don�t. I will not even go

so far as to say that those that do, are wrong. However, I would

never force someone to pay for a single sheet of 4X5 film for me,

even if I knew that I could use it to �capture� Half Dome better than

Ansel Adams and I could not get it any other way.

 

<p>

 

I personally can�t get on board with the �it�s not very much�

argument when it comes to right or wrong. If a businessman defrauds

1 million people out of 10 cents each should we ignore his crime?

 

<p>

 

Also, �some commercialism produces trash�, does not logically imply

that all commercialism produces trash. Just as not all subsidies

produce self-indulgent art. However, commercialism does shield us

against self-indulgent art, if it is allowed to work.

 

<p>

 

If St. Ansel would have been an auto mechanic without government

aid, then so be it. However, I suspect that his talent would have

virtually forced him to be a photographer. Further, food clothing

and shelter weren�t the economic cakewalk then that they are today in

America. Back then you could be able and willing to work and get

cold and hungry anyway.

 

<p>

 

While ten cents a day, might not fund an �Art Day�, one half of the

fruits of the average American�s labor is collected in taxes. Maybe

we could take that ten cents and put something with it, and fund a

day where everyone could be an �artist�.

 

<p>

 

Neal

[doug_paramore]

Note to Ellis: I tried Whooping Crane. It tastes a lot like Bald

Eagle.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[chad_jarvis1]

Another note to Ellis: we also got Velcro out of the space program.

It tastes nothing like bald eagle.

[dan_smith]

Ellis,

 

<p>

 

Whooping crane is what you refer to. It taste is between that of a

spotted owl & a bald eagle, much less gamey than a California Condor.

[marv5]

I think we also got teflon out of the space program. If you cook any

of the above on teflon it tastes like........chicken!

 

<p>

 

So if every thing always taste like chicken....why not just eat

chicken?

 

<p>

 

But back to the original subject, sort of, until I get my check to

produce my art, I want my ten cents back.

[emile_de_leon9]

You guys are just a little old flock of Do Do birdies.Just kidding!

[stevewillard]

Perhaps we should require both.

 

<p>

 

I can remember when college loans were granted whit out any

expectation of academic performance. Billions of tax dollars

were wasted on a "few semesters of college parting". Only

when loans were awarded based on performance did the waste

stop and the money went to serious students.

 

<p>

 

My wife is a poet and has just submitted a collection of poems

for a $25000 grant. To participate she has to be published in 20

different mags over a two year period. This restriction is part

grant and part commercialism. It weeds out the rediculous and

ensures that her art is aligned with the community. It grounds

the art in reality. It dillutes the decission of foolish buearacrates

and awards money to those who are truely committed to their art.

[neal_shields]

Aside: according to my math, it is only a dime if you pay $1000 per

year in income tax. If you're not living under a bridge and pay that

kind of federal tax, please post your tax accountant's telephone

number.

 

<p>

 

Neal

[neal_shields]

Everyone go look at Ellis�s new web site. He demonstrates that �art�

and �professionalism� are not mutually exclusive. I don�t even like

color photography and his bowled me over.

 

<p>

 

My point is, that often when people complain that the community won�t

support art, what they really mean is that the community won�t

support amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art. I

believe that real �art� will touch something in a high school drop

out living under a bridge. He may not understand it, but it will

connect on some level. If in today�s mass communication age, if you

can�t find a market to support your art, ( I certainly can�t) the

problem isn�t likely to be a lack of federal government support.

 

<p>

 

 

--

Neal

[dan_smith]

One of the greatest artists ever was a paid ceiling painter.

Subsidized by the Catholic Church.

Once a civilization has passed on its art, paintings-buildings-

writings, are pretty much all that remains.

How sad it would be if Andy Warhol or Jeffrey Koons was all that was

left of ours.

Every great civilization has subsidized art in some form. I have no

problem with that at all. Art will be around long after Ford Motor

Company has passed from the scene.

[photomark]

<i>what they really mean is that the community won�t support

amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art. I believe

that real �art� will touch something in a high school drop</i>

 

History has shown this to be flatly wrong. Dead wrong.

Completely wrong.<BR>

The community has always been more than thrilled to support

poor art. Look at television. What the community has not been

willing to support is Mozart (subsidized by the court, died broke),

Bach (payed by the church), Van Gogh (not payed at all). All of

these examples had contemporaries that were fabulously

successful in a commercial sense that have been forgoten like

yesterday's breakfast. Most great art is challenging and often

difficult to appreciate in the time it is created. Yet somehow these

works end up being a representative of it's times--not the artistic

equivalent of friut-loops that are commercially successful in

every age. Read up on the premiere of Stravinsky's 'Rite of

Spring.' The people revolted; there was a riot. So does this mean

it is "amateurish art, or poorly marketed and managed art?"

That's ridiculous.

[neal_shields]

"ensures that her art is aligned with the community"

 

<p>

 

Does this remind anybody but me of "1984"?

 

<p>

 

Neal

[neal_shields]

I don�t mind getting beat up. But at least beat me up for my opinion.

 

<p>

 

I will stipulate that: Art is as important as it gets. One of my

favorite quotes is from William Faulkner who was asked some inane

question by a journalist. The question doesn�t survive in my memory

but the answer does: �Ode on a Grecian Urn, is worth any number of

old women�. ( I don't however, agree that bad(most)TV is art.)

 

<p>

 

Second, I will stipulate that sometimes, bad art (experimentation) is

required as a path to extraordinary art.

 

<p>

 

Third I will admit that there is a lot of very good art that the

majority of people don't like.

 

<p>

 

However: because something is important, doesn�t necessarily mean the

government needs to subsidize it.

 

<p>

 

Second, government intervention is often counterproductive.

 

<p>

 

Third, history teaches us that enduring art, (a judgment I accept)

tends to be the fruit of sacrifice, discipline and dedication. The

discipline and dedication of someone that is a commercial success in

a field, is likely to directly benefit their more �artistic� efforts.

 

<p>

 

Forth, in today's "information age" even extremely esoteric art can

recieve a world wide exposure. If there aren't enough people in the

whole world to support an artistic endevor, it is quite likely that

history will have the same opinion.

 

<p>

 

Fifth, and this seems to be where we will split, I don�t believe that

beltway opinions on �art� are superior to anyone else�s. There is

something very primal about art that goes beyond: �the eye enters a

photograph on the lower left and moves to the upper right�.

 

<p>

 

If I took more pictures, I would be a better photographer. I don�t

need a grant to do that. I simply need to place a higher priority on

it. It may be "catch 22"�maybe the very act of asking for a grant

should disqualify you from getting one.

 

<p>

 

Every day in America people are forced out of their homes to satisfy

tax leans. I think on this very web site, I have seen questions such

as: �I have just received a grant which includes the purchase of a

camera, what should I buy?�

 

<p>

 

Who of us, would want to tell someone that even an very small part of

the reason that they are losing their home to help buy some grant

recipient an expensive camera?

 

<p>

 

(I started paying into social security when I was 16 and have paid in

for over 35 years, now I am told that the government might not be

able to afford to honor their agreement with that 16 year old. Is 10

cents too much? Maybe.)

[john_kasaian2]

If you marinate whooping crane in either buttermilk or ginger ale,

you'll get rid of the gamey taste. I don't know if this works for

bald eagles or spotted owls.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"My point is, that often when people complain that the

community won�t support art, what they really mean is that the

community won�t support amateurish art, or poorly marketed and

managed art."</I><P>No that isn't what "they" mean. I say this

having been on the sidelines (as opposed to the cheap seats in

the stadium) of several of these fights and discussions (I guess

I am on the field in this diuscussion, though!). what 'they" mean

is that some narrow minded bureaucrat or elected official gets

scared that a few narrow minded self appointed censors will

raise a hue and cry over the work they are threatened by and the

work will become "controversial". Usually all it takes is one or

two people who feel secure enough in their position to stand up

to the self appointed bullies. And there are self-righteous bullies

on both sides of the fight: People who have mouths wider than

their ability to comprehend that it is a big world.<P>After all who

are you to say what is amateurish, or not well marketed?

McDonald's is great at marketing inoffensive products that

appeal to a huge range of people. So is the "Painter of Light' (a

trademarked slogan) Thomas Kincaid. That doesn't mean

Kinkaid's work isn't complete pablum smeared on canvas or

that a Big Mac tastes the same as fresh bread, a real salad and

a small piece of steak that is well cooked.<P> looking back on

your argument it reeks of the 'anti-elitism" practiced by the

Bolsheviks and the far right brand of socialists. There are things

in the world that have value beyond dollars. Most "artists" I know

work extremely hard, harder than most of us do in our 'day jobs" ,

at what they do with extremely little fiscal gain to show for it. And

one day a year to "do" art won't result in art, it will result in

millions of pieces of crap.<P>Finally I didn't appreciate you

publishing that web address. The site isn't finished and I only

sent it to you privately as a courtesy. If I had wanted it generally

known I would have made it widely available.

[kevin_kemner1]

If I remember correctly Saints Ansel and Edward received governmental

and corporate support.

[dan_smith]

Lest those vegetarians among us get offended, I meant no offense on

the whooping crane, spotted owl, bald eagle & california condor taste

test remarks. I am a confirmed vegetarian myself, only eating steaks

from cows that don't eat meat.

[charlie_strack]

A couple of random thoughts.

 

<p>

 

1. Neal: you seem to really be complaining about taxes. I doubt

there's any value to making those complaints on this forum. If you're

going to complain, complain effectively. (That means do something to

cause a change to alleviate your cause for complaint, don't just

whine.)

 

<p>

 

2. Strict vegetarians cannot be photographers, since all photo

materials use gelatine, derived from animals, mostly cows. Of course

you probably can't use electronic equipment, since photographic

negatives were used in the production of most electronic equipment.

[e._grim]

Ellis, I suspect your mastery of argumentation will clear the

playground. I haven't heard such sophisticated name-calling since 8th

grade. (What the h**l is a "far right brand of socialist," anyway?

But it doesn't matter, does it, if there isn't any such thing? It

sounds bad.)

 

<p>

 

Charlie, the subject is art subsidies. The money for the subsidies

comes from taxpayers. See?

 

<p>

 

E. Grim

[charlie_strack]

E. Grim:

 

<p>

 

I understand that. I'm suspect Neal's true complaint is sub rosa,

based on some of his follow up comments.

 

<p>

 

As a taxpayer, I'd rather my taxes go to the arts than some of the

other pork. Even art I don't particularly appreciate.

 

<p>

 

Charlie

[dan_smith]

"Last evening, I had printed, and ready to show all shell negatives:

two "interested" girls, pubils of B. wanted to see more of my work

after B. had shwon them a print she has of hte first shell.

 

<p>

 

Of course, they were "interested,"--"thrilled,"--but not to the point

of spending money, yet they were wealthy girls. Do they think I show

my work to be flattered?--That I am hungry for praise? Well, I'm

hungry for money & discouraged...

 

<p>

 

I don't know what move to make next...

 

<p>

 

I have to show my prints so often that I detest every one of them. I

suppose this is all right if I am forced by my reaction to create

new."

Edward Weston, 8 June, 1927

 

<p>

 

"My one thought is money! I have tried to make a living here, ina

quiet unobtrusive way,--because of M. But no such way is possible:

the American public want noise, steam-roller methods,--they must be

forced to buy. Woman, who is the buyer here, is not genuinely

interested in art: with her, it is a pose, along with other ways of

culture hunting: all she wants is sex, and all her gestures are

directed by sex,--she would not spend one cent on art,--yet

pretending to be deeply moved, if a new hat would make her more

attractive,--for sex sake! And the poor boobs of American men are but

money machines to further her ends."

 

Edward Weston, 9 June, 1927

 

<p>

 

"The money question is disturbing me mentally."

 

<p>

 

Edward Weston, 18 June, 1927

 

<p>

 

"To really blossom, one must feel wanted, loved: must feel a place os

open for one's especial capacity--not just any job. One;s work must

have social significance, be needed,--to be vital. Art for art;s sake

is a failure: the musician cannot play forever to an empty house.

There must be balance--giving and receiving--of equal import whether

in sex or art. The creative mind demands an audience, must have one

for fulfillment, to give reason for existance. I am not trying to

turn the artist into a propagandist, a social reformer, but I say

that art must have a living quality which relateds it to present

needs, or future hopes, opens new roads for those ready to travel,

those who were ripe but needed an awakening shock,--impregnation. Nor

am I in any way suggesting that the artist consciously tries to put a

message into his work--he may, as Orozco does--who, chipped into a

flame by injustice, releases himself with scathing satire: but his

work will live, one migh say, despite the social theme, as done by a

creative mind, a visionary functioning positively, giving direction

and meaning to life, which had been suffocating in sunless middle-

class parlors, or falsified in "Bohemian" attics. The same theme put

down by a lesser artist, be ever so fiery a radical, would no more

live than a skyscraper erected by a schoolboy.

 

<p>

 

Edward Weston, 20 March 1931

 

<p>

 

"What started me on yesterday's subject was a desire to find the

reason why my work has meaning to many people in many walks of life:

not only artists & intellectuals respond, but businessmen, the

butcher, the baker, etd.,--children too. And now I have been adopted

by the left wing!--though my work has no trace of political

propaganda. But it is none the less radical,--it predicates a

changing order: and that is why it is so disturbing to the

bourgeoisie--I have watched them--who fear change...

 

<p>

 

 

Universal need?--Yes, but not universal acceptance!

 

<p>

 

but have I not wasted several pages in putting down the obvious?"

 

<p>

 

Edward Weston 21 March, 1931

 

<p>

 

 

Even Edward Weston wondered what he was doing, how the demands of

trying to make enough money for his limited needs, felt the

commercial demands on his time and talent. He often quit using

materials because he could no longer afford them, one such was the

change from platinum to chloride printing papers for his work.

 

<p>

 

He sold images but was never a commercial success especially if one

compares him to the master of marketing (learned in painful steps

over a long career) his friend Ansel Adams.

 

<p>

 

Living "the minimalist lifestyle" is highly over rated, usually

spoken of in reverent tones by those who don't have to worry where to

get $5 so they can eat the next week while balancing that against the

real need to purchase another box of film or chemistry to keep

creating, to keep feeding the need to create new images.

The "minimalist lifestyle" may well be a choice made to keep ones

artistic work in progress.

 

<p>

 

Every great civilization has subsidized the arts in some form. I

don't begrudge the money even if I don't like some of the artwork.

Better that Robert Mapplethorpe had received a whole years Federal

Budget than that jackass Jesse Helms getting a dime for his

stupidity... yet Helms gets fat on the public hog trough while

artists of every stripe get castigated because of what they create,

even if they do NOT get a dime from the public hog trough.

 

<p>

 

Artist grants should have no strings attached. The freedom to create

& the acceptance of what is created are not the same thing. If you

want a house built to specs, hire a contractor. If you want art you

have no realistic expectation other than you will get "something...",

you cannot & do not control it, you accept it and live with it. Or,

in the case of the fat, bloated controlling prigs, you censor it &

piss & moan about how your money is spent.

 

<p>

 

Government money or not, art will still be created. Firing the artist

won't stop that. Firing the author of LEAVES OF GRASS did not stop

him from writing poetry and stopping funding won't stop an artist

from creating new works. It may influence the amount of work

produced, the ease in getting supplies or in finding time to produce

more work, but it won't stop it.

 

<p>

 

As for "the market", art will continue to be produced whether it

sells or not. And if the government or a private party makes

available funds to allow me or others to work without financial worry

for a time, that is fine. If they don't like the work produced,

then... in the words of the philosopher, "If they can't take a joke,

fuck 'em".

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

[struan_gray]

I read a nice quote from the first director of Fermilab, whose

name I have forgotten. When Fermilab was set up in the 60s he

was quizzed by a panel of politicians who - understandably -

equated particle physics with nuclear bombs. They wanted to

know how the very new, very expensive accellerator would help to

defend America. The response was that it wouldn't, instead -

and vitally - it made America *worth* *defending*.