OT- Modern Art?

[Burgold]

Is it odd to just me that the man who cheers prank phone calling as the best thing totally derrides modern art or at least its support by government? I don't know about you guys, but art, theatre, music, literature, and the rest feed my soul, just like football does. Interestng side note, there is a really interesting correlation between the cutting of arts programs in public schools and an increase in school violence. Creating art, you see, can have a good cathartic effect, especially clay. The more tactile the medium, the better. As for the health benefits of viewing art, there are several of those too... Color theory has been most interestingly applied in the corporate world.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Burgold

Is it odd to just me that the man who cheers prank phone calling as the best thing totally derrides modern art or at least its support by government?

Uh, is this directed at me, Burgold? If so, (1) I don't recall ever "cheering" prank calls as "the best thing;" (2) go back and re-read this thread again, sir, and you'll find that I was one of the few individuals here defending modern art; and (3) I don't recall necessarily "deriding" the idea of modern art being financially supported by Uncle Sam (i.e. the American taxpaying public), but I do think that it's always preferable if these endeavors can be funded privately.

What can I say, Burgold? I'm a capitalist. I'm a free market kinda guy. As such, I think the market itself should be charged with finding a way to support this stuff. I'm not in favor of state-sponsored corporate welfare, nor am I in favor of the state subsidizing the work of private artists.

[PCS]

Glenn i don't want to put my nose in where it may not belong, but I think at least part of ,(if not all), would appear to be directed at somebody else. Er....somebody who participated in both threads. Though as a pencil/pen and ink kind of a guy, need to discuss this clay thing. k. I'm outta the way.

[OrangeSkin]

I think it was directed at me. Anywho, yeah, prank calls are fun. REALLY fun. And about art, I like art. I just don't like crap that parades itself as art, but it's just crap. i.e. dung jesus, armless madonna, etc. I'm actually a journalist myself. I studied film in college, and I'm a huge movie freak. My favorite movie is Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Is that artsy enough? I read all kinds of literature...I like Shakespeare...I dig real art, not fake art.

[Glenn X]

Ah, I see, gentlemen.

I figured Burgold's prank call comment was directed at me because the Johnny Pupa Media Collection contains a good many prank phone calls (and some damn good ones, in my estimation) in the form of downloadable MP3s.

[Burgold]

Sorry for the weekend nonresponse. Anyway, the comment was originally more aimed at Orange than Glen, though it was really meant as an observation than an attack. While I can see prank calling as fun, I see it as something that is also wasteful and potentially destructive (lower in scale in terms than in the ammount of gov. money though, I suppose).

Glenn, as far as capitalism and government spending, it bothers me far more in sports than in the arts. The deal the Ravens got a few years ago for Glendenning or any number of the stadium deals around the country I find distressing. These teams make tremendous money and should not need government assistance/charity. The city of Baltimore specifically could have used that money for any number of worthwhile projects. More importantly, it has not generated enough revenue in my opinion to offset the expence or the Modell's claiming that they should continue their stadium rental at that very fair rate of one dollar per year. (Side thought: wish my mortgage was one dollar a year)

There a quite a few useful arts institutions that would not survive without help. I'm thinking of groups like VSA (Very Special Arts) an organization that focuses on teaching and promoting arts within the disabled population and using arts as a rehabilitive and self-building for example. On the extreme end of this, I think Washington would be a sadder place without the Smithsonian Institute or Kennedy Center, though it's questionable whether either of those institutions really present modern art, though I would suggest Kennedy Center does. Still, they are arts institutions monstrously dependent on government funding.

As for the crap issue. I debated Art a little on Global Warming and crap because I disagreed with him, still do, but mostly we disagreed on the issue of extent and the topic is one in which we find ourselves :gus: . I won't defend against the crap opinion though. You're right. At least in the sense that since art is subjective, everyone gets to choose what is crap and what's not and for themselves and they are right. I would suggest though, that as a journalist you should know that when groups get to decide what is offensive or not, that can become a slippery slope. Think of the great work that would not exist today like Guernica by El Greco or some of the work by Bosch. Should Huck Finn really be banned? The question for me has never been one of good or bad, but of useful. Does the art in question have any use? Does it generate ideas or conversation? Does it please the eye and provide comfort? Does it provide a warning or tell a story or history? The specific works you picked I think are probably shock art for the sake of being shocking. Anyway, apologies for any offence or confusion my last post left.

[Glenn X]

While I can see prank calling as fun, I see it as something that is also wasteful and potentially destructive (lower in scale in terms than in the ammount of gov. money though, I suppose).

Then you haven’t heard Johnny Pupa’s prank calls, my friend! His stuff is some of the funniest, most entertaining audio media I’ve ever listened to. The Jerky Boys are certainly great, too, and I would heartily recommend them. But Pupa’s work is in a class by itself.

BTW, the tags of “wasteful” and “destructive” have certainly been applied by some to a significant portion of modern art, namely Mapplethorpe’s stuff. As always, it’s all simply a matter of personal taste.

Glenn, as far as capitalism and government spending, it bothers me far more in sports than in the arts. The deal the Ravens got a few years ago for Glendenning or any number of the stadium deals around the country I find distressing.

Oh, absolutely. Modell fleeced Maryland on that deal. As I said before, corporate welfare ain’t cool with me. If Modell can’t make that stadium deal work on his own, then he oughta step away from the bargaining table and sell the Ravens to a businessman who actually can.

There a quite a few useful arts institutions that would not survive without [government] help... when [certain] groups get to decide what is offensive or not, that can become a slippery slope. Think of the great work that would not exist today like Guernica by El Greco or some of the work by Bosch. Should Huck Finn really be banned? The question for me has never been one of good or bad, but of useful.

Who then determines what is “useful” art, Burgold?

You?

Uncle Sam?

Who?

This is precisely my problem with the government injecting itself into this issue by way of the NEA and the NEH. By funding certain artworks over others, the government is getting into the business of making value judgments in art, determining that certain artworks are “better” and/or (to use your term, Burgold) more “useful” than others, and then throwing its money, taxpayer money, behind those particular works over others. Should Uncle Sam be involved in such matters? If so, who gets to make the final call on what passes muster and gets funding? Shouldn’t the taxpaying public, whose tax dollars make possible the NEA, the NEH, and the art that these organizations support, have more of a say on these matters than they currently do?

I’m not sure what the “right” answer is here, Burgold. Maybe there isn’t a “right” answer. However, the bottom line is this: The public sector didn’t enmesh itself into this program of subsidizing art overnight, and no one can reasonably expect it to disentangle itself from this enterprise overnight -- if ever -- either. In fact, I fully expect Uncle Sam to go on subsidizing art -- or I should say subsidizing certain art over others -- into the foreseeable future. And the attendant pros and cons of this strategy will surely maintain.