Saturday, April 17, 2010
The fat lady must learn to be a little thinner
Times Online: "Can we just bypass the “is it art?” debate? It’s a giant, misshapen rollercoaster- type thingy, with a sort of sub-Eiffel Towery feel. It may or may not symbolise the twisted dreams of our country’s financial capital or Man’s doomed striving for the sky on his meandering path towards the grave. Or something. But let’s just call it art and be done."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This subject by nature doesn't really seem one that has a blanket equation where you can just plug and chug. Although the idea of the poor man funding the entertainment of the rich is one that seems apparent in some of the subsidies that are going on, there are also some other subsidies for which it may not seem as apparent. To leave the system like that would be to just continue the feeling that several taxpayers have for it which right now isn't too pretty. It might not be too bad for people to get out more but, art still is a pretty essential part of not only their way of life but, also on the economy. If one form of leisure is eliminated, then another will soon come to take its place.
Okay, get ready for Sharisse's really long/complicated comment:
There were things I liked and disliked about this article. I'm not one for numbers, so I had to force myself to read it, and I might have misinterpreted...but I don't think it did a good job covering the whole issue. I agree that some grants, like the 50,000 euro grant for smartphone apps is just plain INSANE. I mainly disagree with this statement: "But if the people really want art, they can find it and they can pay for it. Voluntarily." I think that's a little silly to say. If artists don't have money, how is the art going to get to the public? We shouldn't be funding art in order to provide for the public, we should be providing for the artist so the artist can provide for him or herself. I know that makes no sense when you look at it from the tax perspective...because it is our money, etc. But then it makes no sense at all! Artists don't create for the public, not most of them anyways...I suppose Broadway musicals do but theatre is really the only art form that does, other than dance. It's not a science, and I find the same frustration when stupid experimental art that has no depth or value gets funding. I suppose if we're being politically correct, we can't discount any art, no matter how ridiculous, because it's all a form of communication and opinion and blah blah blah. But I'm allowed to show a little ego now and again. We can just keep it to ourselves, but c'mon...some "art" really is pointless and makes no sense. Unfortunately I have no idea how we can prevent certain organizations from getting money vs. ones who really deserve it.
Also, I had a huge problem with the author's sass towards the beginning, because you do not diss Anish Kapoor. Rule # 1, don't talk about art if you don't understand what you are talking about, and Anish Kapoor is an incredibly well respected artistic visionary.
I'm not sure how I really feel about this being a solution to subsidies.. I think that it's important to have an artistic community, however I would probably argue that other communities aren't as useful just as others have decided that the arts are taking up too much footprint.
Post a Comment