Apparently, fifty US legislators have written to the NEA in “outrage” about some of the organizations supported through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Their contention is that some of the organizations who were given funding from the NEA to preserve a non-profit art jobs, are presenting art that some citizens might find objectionable. Read an article about it on OCALA.com.
What do you think KC Cultural Community? An outrage or a yawn? Weigh in on the comment chain below.
3 comments
Ariel says:
Aug 13, 2009
It’s a yawn. Using this argument brings us right back to the snake eating its tail that is the debate about art vs. obscenity.
Besides, in this economy, a job is a job is a job. Why does it matter if the job saved is at an organization where the art *may* have content that *may* not be seen as kosher by *a portion* of the population? What makes the people who work at orgs that host or present this art less deserving than people who work at childrens’ museums or theaters, which surely no one would object to supporting.
I wonder if these legislators remember that on average, 40% of the people in their district find them objectionable. Yet they still get to keep their jobs. Food for thought… let the NEA do its job and choose where the stimulus money is best used.
Ann-Marie Stillion says:
Aug 27, 2009
The Republican representative from Florida mostly is doing what many of his colleagues are doing these days: spewing half truths and so called facts.
One of the groups, Counter Pulse, is primarily a rental space. And as far as the dance group featuring naked children, even if this charge is true, which I doubt, its really none of the congressman’s business.
The congressman sits on the veterans and energy committees, supporting war and the coal companies. This seems a lot more threatening to America than naked dancing.
I always wonder how the Republicans can get away with claiming that they support the right of the individual when so much of their rhetoric is about controlling other people’s choices.
S. A. says:
Sep 18, 2009
I am a visual artist. I have been trained in public art, painting, weaving, printmaking, bookbinding, ceramics, glassblowing, children’s book illustration- you name it- just so you know where my perspective is coming from.
Until artists start paying attention to the “public” in public art, and not purposely trying to provoke the general citizenry while using public funds, this will be an issue.
Go ahead and make inflammatory conceptual art that thumbs it’s nose at public mores & values in the PRIVATE sector- if it’s of artistic & conceptual value, people will buy it.
However, If you are lucky enough to get a grant to do public art or are supported by public funds, don’t ruin it for everyone else by purposely producing ugly, poorly crafted “art” dealing with inflammatory subjects- or if you do, expect to have art funding cut dramatically- even in a good economy (which this economy is obviously not, nor will be for the foreseeable future).
If artists do not overtly demonstrate the value to society of creating art that improves the lives of the general public, then funding will be cut. Period.
Strive to create art that uplifts, betters humanity, and improves & touches as many lives as possible- we always need that, but especially now.