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.
The difference is entirely artificial and the distinction is a pervasive
myth promulgated by modernists. Michelangelo was an illustrator, as was
Giotto, as was almost every other artist in history. They were given an
assignment, job parameters, a budget and a deadline. No difference
>Mike you are also
>a business man. some people don't have that skill. (Thank God.)
As for me being a businessman - my wife would argue that point with you. I
am as passionate about my work as any so-called fine artist who puts paint
to canvas. Incidentally, David Hockney and Frank Stella both did shopping
bag designs for Dayton's - posters, theater sets, book art - all of these
things are illustration projects. My experience has been that the main
thing distinguishing fine artists from illustrators is that illustrators
are more disciplined and have a better command of their craft. I've taught
for years and artists who call themselves illustrators consistently better
at drawing and seeing.
>people have an inherent drive to create art. I personally find value in
>that. Our tax dollars have gone to support a war in the gulf to keep us
>running with oil.
There were any number of arguments for participating in the Gulf War - we
needn't debate them here, but there is no logical cononection between the
two. Our Constitution specifically assigns the Federal government with the
task of fighting wars. There is no such provision for funding the arts.
True, if Congress wants it, then such funding is allowed. I simply don't
think it's a function of government to allocate money to individuals. The
argument that subsequent activities of those individual benefit us all is
far too tenuous.
>I have no problem spending some of that money on the
>arts, let alone educating our children. I also want to point out that
>Vincent Van Gogh sold one painting in his life time and died in poverty.
>Maybe that's not relevant or maybe it is.
Irrelevant. It doesn't change the basic philosophical issue of confiscating
money from the public to support the interests of individuals.
>My problem with NEA is the
>decision making on who and what gets the money. However, that is how it is
>in big governments.
I am consistent - I oppose all such expenditures.
>The little guy always gets lost. I would like to see
>distribution at more of a grass roots level.
No problem - don't give anything to the big guy OR the little guy.
-- Mike Reed