Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:01:00 -0500
From: Whit Blauvelt <whitfb-AT-dorsai.org>
Subject: Re[2]: Truth in 1997


 The only real problem with the reasoning below is that the countries with
 better public arts funding _also_ are the countries with better social
 support programs in other areas. I doubt that any country other than the
 US has ever spent more on military bands than arts grants - and even here
 that counted as part of the military, not the social, budget. 

 Furthermore, the reason so much arts funding has been cut here is
 precisely because the artists were _not_ looking after the corporate
 interests. And so you suggest this is better for the arts, if the _only_
 support is from the privately rich, who generally tend to be corporations
 or their owners? I'm not sure you're wrong in opposing public arts
 funding; but the reasons you state hold no water.


 > I can think of a few additional countries who used this same tired,
 > singular, and spurious nationalistic exemplar for 'public arts-funding;'
 > that first, has to create and trickle through a few more levels of
 > well-heeled administration, and first fund the military marching bands
 and
 > a few hundred more performances of Cats and Hamlet before it might reach
 > the compromised recipients.
 > 
 > Public arts-funding regularly inhibits and stands-in-for both local
 > creative achievement (and its reception), and significant national
 social
 > policies ((like, guaranteed (innovation) annual incomes, universal
 > healthcare, public higher education, etc)), in order to maintain
 > escalating corporate welfare policies, fraudulent culture academies,
 > exploitive administrative bureaucracy, and social divisiveness. 
 


\/\/ I-I I T   \   whitfb-AT-dorsai.org   /   http://www.dorsai.org   
Blauvelt       /   nyc           usa   \   http://www.isitc.org



     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---