Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: the value of certification?

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Gigi Schroeder (gschroed.com)
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:19:37 -0700


Mike - there is so much focus on the small, controversial subjects that were funded
or inadvertantly funded by the NEA and less on the huge and positive aspects. This
country already gives so little to funding the arts. Less than the cost of a cup of
coffee per tax payer is spent on museums, education programs, and artists. Why
eliminate what little funding there is. Few individual artists actually receive
monies for the NEA and those that do are usually very established in there careers.
It is not easy. I'm not sure what you are suggesting in terms of having them "make
it on there own." Gigi

Roseau wrote:

> >I may be wrong, but I believe the NEA did not fund the "Piss Christ." The
> >work was
> >funded by an institution that was funded by the NEA. People who oppose the NEA
> >often site this work as a reason for not funding it.
>
> It's a difference without a distinction.
>
> In either case public money went to an individual artist - some committee
> ("certified", no doubt) took it upon themselves to spend money that wasn't
> theirs for art that few people wanted or cared about.
>
> I would argue against having an NEA at all, but if we must have an NEA then
> its scope should be strictly limited to educational or archival purposes.
> Not one penny for emerging artsts! Let them survive or fail on their own
> merits.
>
> cordially
>
> --
> Mike Reed
>
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/html/art.html