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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005