Republicans on art; federal funding of art

Was this Chris Offili? (I seem to remember contro over him in NYC) Ifso, it's a *little* more sophisticated than that...

Yet, in the UK, conservative government giving money to art (albeit through Charles Saatchi, blah blah, HSA to thread) produced some incredibly good, not to mention subversive, art. Go figure.

i'm actually sympathetic to the argument that government should get outta the art-funding business altogether -- precisely because of the jesse-jesse-joe problem. but i know that this view is problematic (i.e., how do worthy but commercially unsuccessful artists get support?) and i am open to suggestions contra the above argument.

If Americans and the American government don't mind being forgotten as a society of anything but war and commerce, that's our choice, I suppose. Which do we remember more, a century or two later - businessmen and middle management, or artists?

i mean, if jesse helms got all bothered because of "piss christ"*, i can only IMAGINE how he woulda reacted to a naked genesis & cosy fanny tutty (or whatever the fuck her name is) mutilating themselves onstage ON THE FEDERAL DIME! (maybe federal funding of the arts IS a-ok?!?)

* = i consider "piss christ" to be worthwhile art, fwiw

If you're going to start roping off sections of society and culture that shouldn't receive govt $ where do you stop/start? parks, govt architecture, subway stations, but also Public radio, for instance, has to be funded by the govt surely. The arts need to be lively and forward-looking, and you can't get that if the only people who can afford the time and materials necessary for art's particularly time-consuming process of boredome, inspiration, and work (trans: faffing about in the studio) are available only to rich people who have time to kill.

precisely -- but that's also an argument for getting the federal gov't out of funding the arts. (yes, i DID read the rest of yer post tracer and i am sympathetic.)

shit art!

so no, conservative gov't wouldn't give money to "shit art."

They brought that up, actually. And Colmes said "Well the ACLU is helping out Rush Limbaugh" and Hannity said "Sometimes they get it right." Apparantly he doesn't get that they protect freedom of speech ALL OF THE TIME. Meaning, you can't just ignore it when people disagree with you. Ugh, the stupidity.

actually, yBa came about the way it did (sponsored by conglomorates and aimed at dealers/collectors like Saatchi and Jopling) because it emerged at exactly the point when Thatcher's govt cut funding to independent artists. The only way the yBa artists were 'indirectly' funded by the Thatcher regime was due to the fact that most of them were collecting unemployment benefit straight out of college.

The federal government absolutely should be out of the art-funding-business.

This is not and should not be an issue of whether or not some kook taxpayer disagrees with a turd shaped liked Jesus, Allah, or Hillary Clinton.

This is not and should not be an issue of whether or not the fed funds things we like or don't like.

This should be an issue of where the fuck does the Constitution provide support for such an indulgence?

On a state or other local level, let the citizens decide if they want to build stadiums, subsidize the Rock-n-Roll museum, fund Planned Parenthood, etc. The federal government has no reasonable basis for supporting art of any kind.

entire history of western art to thread, please

Well, to argue HSA's point, "and because all of Saatchi's money came from the right-wing oppressive Thatcher-promoting policies of Saatchi & Saatchi" but those are his words, not mine, so I'm not going to argue that.

However, I can and WILL argue that the dole (yeah, even this joke Blairite "musicians dole") has been a valid point. Count the number of British artist-types that I know who lived on the dole for up to a decade while they wrote their novel/worked on their work/formed bands? Dozens. Americans? None. They all had shit susistence level jobs, or else trust funds. I'm not sure what that says. If yer a successful artist in the UK, you either graduate to selling to the Patrons Of The Arts of the day (evil business-people who are trying to cleanse their mortal souls from their dodgy dealings so they can buy their way into heaven and/or a wing at the Tate) or else you graduate to Arts Councils Grants.

Do I believe that Federal Governments should provide funding for the arts? Yes. They should provide funding for all kinds of cultural infrastructure - museums, galleries, parks, stadiums (yes I know that's incorrect), theatres, etc. This is part of civilisation, keeping your citizens culturally aware and educated.

Should the government have a part in selecting what kind of art gets or doesn't get subsidising? Absolutely not. It should be selected by hopefully impartial worthy bodies who are not subject to "politics" (and hopefully not subject to "fashionable whims" whatever they are) who hopefully have some kind of taste and discernment, etc. Yes, I know that's a minefield. But I would rather have my art chosen for me by the first 50 faculty names in the Royal Society Directory than the first 50 names in the phone book.

Should the government subsidise artists, directly? This is a thornier issue. As I stated above, I do feel like the UK social support system does actually contribute to the UK arts scene being "better". An artist who does not have to make a living will hopefully make "better" art than one concerned solely with the commercial potential of that art. (Walking around commercial galleries in Vermont makes me want to throw up.) However, there does have to be some sort of cut-off on this. No one has the right to declare "I want to be an artist" any more than any other occupation. You have to prove you're good enough. Sure, art perhaps has a longer "apprenticeship" than most professions but if at the end of a certain period, you haven't produced a body of work strong enough to either attract private sales, or impress some kind of arts council board, well, then, FIND ANOTHER GODDAMN PROFESSION.

On the whole, for most of the history of art, the culturally accepted geniuses have *not* spent their entire lives starving in garrets to be discovered after their deaths. That meme is a myth. (Yes, I know, Van Gogh, but you know what? Supported by his successful businessman brother for most of his life.)

Whoo! Damien Hirst! Sexy knees! Whoo!

There is no need for the state to provide this. The citizens should be the ones deciding what cultural awareness and education they need. It is inappropriate for the state to be deciding this. It is preposterous to declare that government is responsible for my cultural awarenes or cultural education and I resent the implication that I am too stupid or unaware to gain cultural understanding without the government showing me how.

After all, there is a wealth of history where the State's version of art is little more than propaganda (The Third Reich, the Vatican, etc.) The problem with putting the government in charge of art and culture is that it becomes politicized and subject to those in power. If left exclusively to the market, the value of art is properly decided.

Also, C20 examples like the Third Reich, where art is so controlled it becomes propaganda, make the strongest possible case for keeping one's government out of it in terms of content - but only in those terms. A strong society can handle introspection and criticism as well as celebration (which is why despite its power, when I hear Americans whining about contentious art 'on the Federal dime', I think it is a weaker, more craven society because of these whingers).

Was working for an anti-censorship group during the time of the NEA Serrano controversy (Bushes again) and did the artists feel they were being censored and persecuted for their beliefs/expression? You bet they did.

So the connection to totalitarianism isn't by virtue of funding (which lobbyists complain about) but censorship (which is what the lobbyists are doing by saying the art shouldn't be funded).

Ironic, no?

Obviously, collective action is part of citizenry and culture. I'm not opposed to this on a local level where the discretion is much more representative.

However, as I noted earlier, the mandate for federal funding of art is obscure at best in the United States.

it is whether the best art or the most ambitious art will be secured for society and the future simply through the mechanisms of the market

Art is completely subjective, and to let anything other than the market decide what is "best" or "most ambitious" is illogical. In fact, much art that the government has not found to be the "best" or "most ambitious" has been historically revised to be otherwise.

Suzy, this has absolutely nothing to do with me naming 5 artists I like. I've got literally thousands of dollars invested in artwork in my house--if you don't know who these people are, what does that mean (and this goes without saying that I've also got thousands of CDs representing artists you may or may not have heard of, artists whom most likely never received one penny in federal arts funding.) It matters not one bit that Americans can or can't name 5 artists. There are thousands of artists creating things in the United States, and the vast majority of them are probably not receiving any federal funding.

There are millions of dollars in art funding at the state and localized levels going on without the feds getting involved. Additionally, there are millions of dollars in art funding (albeit from tax free donations, an oblique form of government support) provided from private donations to foundations and the like, and there are millions of dollars spent on artists to purchase artwork by citizens, etc.

Given this, someone explain to me the necessity of an additional federal beaurocracy to funnel additional funds to the arts. Why should the citizens of Montana be supporting artists in New York or vice versa? It is not only an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars, it is an absurd one. There is no Consitutional justification.

Hm. Are they supporting the artists in Montana themselves?

Rich people who buy art and keep it in the public domain get HUGE tax breaks. There would be an uproar if that ceased to be an option.

excellent point.

Yes.

Art is funded by governments because it makes good business sense to do so

What sort of business return does the federal government get from funding the arts? Is it better than a) doing nothing or b) better than the return that state/local governments are getting?

Rich people who buy art and keep it in the public domain get HUGE tax breaks. There would be an uproar if that ceased to be an option

The rich people get the same tax breaks as the non-rich for doing this.

I don't care if there's an uproar for ceasing a) the tax break or b) the federal funding. It's not Constitutional.

They are? (I'm being serious about this.)

Yes. They are. Ned, you can Google as well as I can (try Montana Arts Council, for one, which is at least partially if not completely funded by the state of Montana. Then try Montana art gallery in Google, etc. There is plenty of art being supported in Montana on a local level.)

The market is an awful mechanism for deciding what is the best and most ambitious art for several reasons. The market can only decide what people want to buy, which means that it is a great mechanism for giving the advantage to the tastes of people with money. The market is clearly not very good at deciding anything to do with value apart from financial value (even if consumers value other things, the market is not the way that they express those values). In fact, art history demonstrates time and again that the market for art significantly lags behind the production of art. If you leave arts funding up to the market, then, you will find you are only funding the art that the previous generation popularised, not what this generation are producing.

So, the question is, what other mechanism can we use to fund the art that has not yet found its market?

Art galleries and museums (which, by the way, need art in them in order to function properly - and need the best art in them in order to compete with other art galleries around the world) are massive businesses, not only in terms of what visitors spend in the institution but also in terms of the city that houses those galleries and museums. Any politician that trivialised the financial value of art should be trusted with making decisions about culture or the economy.

This is irrelevant to federalized funding, since it assumes that only on a federal level can the value of art be ascertained.

The market is clearly not very good at deciding anything to do with value apart from financial value

What other objective way is there to measure value? You mean we have to rely on the opinion of those in federal political power to measure the value of art?

So, the question is, what other mechanism can we use to fund the art that has not yet found its market?

The mechanism to fund art should be devised by its creators.

Art galleries are massive business, yes. They could easily exist without the cooperation of the federal government in the United States. It is inefficient and absurd to think that the greatest art in the world needs the helping hand of Uncle Sam to exist--if it is the best and most ambitious, it will find a place in the market. The government is no better at divining the long term value of art than its citizens or the market, other than creating an artificial value.

Thank Ed--my distinction has been concise from the beginning in this thread. I am not at all against government funding of the arts at all, except for on a federal level where a very select group of political patrons get to decide how to redistribute the wealth of the citizenry. Arts funding is, to me, another example of the federal government operating in an unnecessary area of culture where it is not Constitutionally justified. Plenty of art, millions and millions of dollars worth, can stand on its own two feet without Uncle Sam coming in to save the day.

If left exclusively to the market, the value of art is properly decided.

make your mind up Don!

Also, as I've noted outright or intimated ad nauseum, it is reasonable for society to support the arts, even on a taxable level. But not on a federal level.

taxes are to fund the mechanics of government, not subsidize a preferred group of citizens. yeah, farm subsidies and tariffs and corporate welfare, prescription drug plans, etc... should be eliminated too then.

This doesn't preclude government involvement. Government is a big player in any market.

x-post

Yes Ed, the federal government is a huge player in any market. It's unavoidable in that sense. But I don't think it has legitimate interest in creating the market for art. That's the big distinguishing characteristic for me.

What have we gained?

We'd all be a lot better off if those bastards in DC would stop using the tax code as a hammer for social engineering--not only the estate tax but the plethora of shelters that make it such a pile of bullshit. That's the whole point--we can keep raising the estate tax higher and higher but the "richest" that you want to punish will continue avoiding it.

Article I, Section 8, clause i: "Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes ... and provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States."

The text of this clause contains no ("internal") limits upon the power to spend. While the "general welfare" is not defined, the Supreme Court has held that Congress' discretion to determine what is in the national interest is almost unrestricted and will not be second-guessed unless it is "clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power [rather than] an exercise of judgment." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640 (1937). Thus, where Congress' expenditure does not implicate a different ("external") Constitutional limitation (such as the limits upon Congress' power to regulate or the implicit protection of state sovereignty that reserves traditionally local powers to the states), the only limits upon Congress' power are political, not Constitutional.

This is an interpretation of the Constitution I don't agree with, which is why I think it's a Constitutional issue and not necessarily just a political one.

There is a wide range of interpretations of what counts as general welfare. I would prefer it to be more narrow to restrict the amount of political power afforded by the federal government in this case.

If the activists are working towards a more strict reading, then most likely yes.

How would such a judiciary review an Omnibus Appropriations Bill?

It's not politically possible, and judicial precedent already gives wide range to spending. The floodgates were opened long ago, and challenging Congress on an issue like this is totally fruitless in the judiciary.

Would certain localities or regions of the country receive disproportionate benefits by being disproportionately represented on the Court?

This already happens without the Court.

I don't have answers to all the problems I have with the way things are. I wish I did. I'm just tired of watching it get worse.

In any case, I think we're some distance away from "not Constitutionally justifiable."

Yes, I do. But I do not concede that the definition of "general welfare" should include the latitude to spend federal taxpayer's money on art.

I do not know if it is or would be possible for the Supreme Court to render a decision that would prevent the funding for art yet provide funding for other "general welfare" issues. But if it is, then I am for it. The definition of "general welfare" has been abused and exploited.

I'm just not sure why, say, testing the strength of molybdenum molecules in outer space might be for the general good, but funding a Provincetown fellowship program for artists is not.

What you mean is that you disagree with others about how they interpret the idea of 'general welfare'. This is yet another political issue, then. And if the very question of the 'general welfare' is a political issue, then it demands a political answer. That is why the national government needs to have a policy on what counts as the 'general welfare' and it needs to provide for it on that basis. Calling for the national government to devolve responsibility for the 'general welfare' is to treat welfare as if it weren't general at all.

Well, yes, then what issue isn't political?

The reason I used the word "Constitutional" is because I base my political opinion on how the Constitution has been interpreted to define what "general welfare" is.

That is why the national government needs to have a policy on what counts as the 'general welfare' and it needs to provide for it on that basis.

Right now, that policy is determined, more or less, by agencies of the federal government, Congress, and the judicial branch. There doesn't appear to be a guideline for what is appropriate other than the political ideals of whomever is in office.

Calling for the national government to devolve responsibility for the 'general welfare' is to treat welfare as if it weren't general at all.

I disagree. Does this mean that the federal government can keep expanding the definition of general welfare without any criticism? Should we keep allowing people like John Ashcroft to widen the scope of government surveillance, just because he thinks it's in the "general welfare", or in times of "peace" should be be able to rescind those powers?

entire history of western art to thread, please

Heh. More like entire history of the Roman Catholic Church to thread...

Not really. You don't believe that some people were born to create?

What you say about contemporary artists is entirely false. Before they won the Turner Prize, artists like Martin Creed and Keith Tyson were awarded money from the Arts Board. They are not in a minority in this. Also, I can't think of a single commercially successful artist in the UK who has not had a work bought or commissioned by a publically funded museum. And on top of that, an artist like Mike Nelson has actively resisted the market by refusing to dismantle his installations into smaller commodities - and so it is absolutely no reflection on the quality of his work if there is a reduced market for it.

byw in the UK it's not true that most grants come from corporate tax shelters. It comes from the state.

This is a kind of statemtnt made by people who look at Picasso and say, "my 5 year old can do that." My point is your 5 year old can't. And neither can you.

...then they would not be able to do so if the means to create were witheld - money, time, space, education, institutions, that sort of thing.

Artists create on their time -- it's something that separates film/video artists from other more trad. artists, but that's another point. If you have the itch to draw or paint, you can do it on your own time, independent of circumstances around you, and without extravagent cost. Art is, in part, a product of the means available. Those whose work expands beyond a page (sculptors, for example) are the exception, rather than the rule.

Read just about any artists' bio post 1950, and you'll get something along the lines of, "so-and-so worked at gallery x- or shit-job-x for a period of time where he developed his/her style...." Point being that many artists' work is funded through their own means.

Everything has its exception -- Matthew Barney, etc.

Also, I can't think of a single commercially successful artist in the UK who has not had a work bought or commissioned by a publically funded museum.

This is true, but at the same time, their work created its market, which led to purchases by museums, etc.

Ending the NEA won't kill art or artists or the art market, as much as, say, killing Public Television would harm the independent producton companies...

Artists can't always 'create' in their own time. That's ridiculous. Artists who paint can paint at home in their own time, but try building a complex installation of 25 rooms linked to one another by corridors 'in your own time'. And artists whose work expands beyond the page are not the exception. That just shows a complete lack of knowledge of the contemporary art world. Installation, video, performance, social systems, public projects - these are the ways artists work today, not on the page.

Artists often have to make their work from a combination of means, not just from their income by working crappy jobs. They survive by working in a warehouse, but their work is often funded by galleries, museums, grants, etc. If you're any good, you don't just go straight to the market, you get recognised by the art institutions. So, you're dead wrong about museums following the market; its the other way round. Collectors want to know which collections you're in before they invest their money into your work. Museums buy work that they think will have a future; collectors buy work that has already been sanctioned.

There's also a myth about public funding, that it is inefficient and elitist - that 'someone else' imposes their taste on society by buying work on their behalf. This is not true either.

And there's a myth about art, that it's just a matter of taste and therefore, just like shopping for shoes, it might as well be the stuff that people want to buy that gets all the success. Art isn't like shoes because it's not made to be immediately liked. Sometimes its takes years, decades, centuries for art to get a decent public (a decent market). You have to take this into account when you plan your economy. If you simply assume that the best art will create its own market and will therefore be ok, then you have learnt nothing from history and you will impoverish the culture.

As to this - anyone worth their salt is able to succeed as an artist in the global marketplace, that's simply untrue.

The "global marketplace" of art is governed by connections, status, media, and pure dumb luck far more than talent, vision or strength of work. If you couldn't afford to get into RISD or SVA or Yale art or anywhere else that has cultural capital, you're at a disadvantage. This attitude eventually assigns the role of 'making art' and being able to just make art to the privileged, while the proles go on with their jobs.

Installation, video, performance, social systems, public projects - these are the ways artists work today, not on the page.

Art isn't like shoes because it's not made to be immediately liked.

This is just nonsense. (some) Artists work out of a desire for validation.

So, you're dead wrong about museums following the market; its the other way round.

Tell that to the Whitney when McGinley has a retrospective at 28 (or whatever). What makes it into museums (and I'm not talking pop galleries like Deych Projects) is directly related to impact at the time, which includes work that finds its market. The Whitney Biennial was not made up of starving artists, they were people who make a living doing art, found their audience, whose work had a true effect on the artists who follow.

The "global marketplace" of art is governed by connections, status, media, and pure dumb luck far more than talent, vision or strength of work.

This is true of everything...

So, now if you say that *(some)* artists work out of a desire for validation (which is a strange psychologising of the result of years of education and experience) - you might as well say that everyone works out of a desire for validation. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a complex, non-immediate relationship with the market. Even if an artist does have a desire for validation, they may reason that the best sort of validation they can have is to be validated by other artists, art critics, curators, and so on, not necessarily the market. In which case, your riposte is nonsense.

He's pretty much the poster boy for "connections, status, media and pure dumb luck" winning out over vision, talent or merit in general.

Is that the art world you think should be encouraged? Is anyone going to remember Ryan McGinley in fifty years?

Another very good reason for the arts to be funded to aspire towards equality of access is to save us all from reductive slurs about trustafarianism, because it's a fucking insult to be called a rich dilettante when you're really an ambitious scholarship kid. The harder it gets for anyone from what rich people call a 'humble' background to gain access to the first rungs on the art ladder, the more animosity will be directed at art made by and for an elite.