File spoon-archives/avant-garde.archive/avant-garde_1997/97-01-27.165, message 113


Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:23:48 -0800 (PST)
From: { brad brace } <bbrace-AT-netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Truth in 1997



No. I'd think that today, many large corporations would not be especially
concerned with their support of non-corporate cultural largess. 

/:b

__

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Whit Blauvelt wrote:

>  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. 
>  


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



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005