To the editor:
The evisceration of the arts in commercial civilizations has a long history. The latest outbreak with Brownback’s firing of the Kansas Arts Commission was promoted as “the best way to cause the arts to flourish privately in Kansas while saving taxpayer dollars.” Note: “to flourish privately,” not publicly.
What is left from ancient commercial civilizations such as Rome? Private wealth? Conquering armies? Corporate entities? We only have a few fragments from poets and essayists, warm, loving, humane and some extraordinary chisel work on statues and broken theater columns. The forms of unhurried meditation and dramatically expressive imagination.
The wealthy and powerful have always assured us they were defending civilization when in fact in their pig-headed grasping for profit and power they have almost nothing civilized to share. So little one might add that they have usually ended up eliminating one another. The joys of life are as unassimilable to them as shrapnel.
Is Brownback promoting a return to the ancient system of wealthy patronage? That will guarantee the support for what I would identify as Puritan-realism where gun toting actors have attenuated Kalashnikov conferences and debauching, make-my-day street corner shootouts.
As Kansas heads into a more paternalistic and low-paying future, a tedium vitae that lacks empathy and humane life goals, we can be assured that American artists, truly indigenous, at times marvelously bold and apt to create telluric upheavals, will have no public voice.
Comments
Liberty_One 2 years ago
Why would anyone who cares about art want the government to be involved in it? That begs for censorship, political control and propaganda. Government intervention into art is the worst thing that can happen to art. Anyone who actually cares about artistic expression and consumption would be demanding that the government stay as far away from art as possible.
DeaconBlue 2 years ago
So that the liberals, who do not give to charities-ask any accountant, can get others hard earned money to support their whims.
The government, which is loaded full of liberals, is a perfect medium to take hard workers money by taxation.
But, you know this. I just had to get it off my massive chest.
TheFlyingPig 2 years ago
DeaconBlue - - - I think that at last count, the government in Kansas (and a lot of other states) is pretty much fundamentalist conservative. And please look around you and see how many government programs that YOU personally benefit from or would be harmed if they disappeared. Are you willing to totally financially take care of your parents or grandparents when they do not have Medicare or Social Security? How about paying a toll on EVERY road you drive on? Or how about paying very expensive tuition for your children to attend basic schools?
Did_I_say_that 2 years ago
"I think that at last count, the government in Kansas (and a lot of other states) is pretty much fundamentalist conservative."
This is a false presumption based upon election results only. The presumption fails to recognize the largest branch of the government - its 4th branch - bureaucracy. Bureaucracy, as a means of self-preservation must be liberal and seek expansion. That is the branch that is indeed liberal.
"Or how about paying very expensive tuition for your children to attend basic schools?"
This is simply another fallacy. Check out any of the high quality private schools in Lawrence. Their tuition is about half of the cost of a public school education. Again, this is a bureaucracy problem.
jafs 2 years ago
That's a bit absurd.
By equating bureaucracy with liberal, you collapse two things together that aren't linked.
If Republicans were really interested in smaller government, they wouldn't create new departments, positions, etc.
You can't let them off the hook so easily.
kuguardgrl13 2 years ago
Private schools cheaper than public schools? HAH! That's funny! You can go right ahead and pay the supposedly cheaper tuition for private schools, but you will still have to pay every penny of taxes that goes to the public schools. Even if you don't have kids at all, you still have to pay the taxes for the schools. So really, paying private school tuition doesn't save you a dime.
Did_I_say_that 2 years ago
That does not change the fact that private schools operate at half the cost per pupil then public schools. And, yes, you are correct - everyone has the cost of public schools confiscated from their earnings.
gudpoynt 2 years ago
Do you have any idea how many more resources it takes to operate a public schools that, by law, must accept everyone, versus a private school that can set their own rules of for enrollment use tuitions to tailor their clientele?
Cheaper to operate as a whole? Maybe for some private schools, that is true.
Cheaper to operate per student, including disabled, ESL, and at risk students? Nope. You're wrong. Simply wrong.
Chengdu808 2 years ago
Excellent letter. Thanks for writing it.
TheFlyingPig 2 years ago
Liberty_One seems to be against any government support of the arts and to be afraid of government involvement such as in Nazi Germany where the government controlled every aspect of art, even to showing what it considered "degenerate" art.
Every government from the advent of governments has supported the arts in some way. What we are talking about here is seed money to help arts organizations which would not otherwise be able to stand on their own. This mostly affects rural Western Kansas.
I believe that Mr. Nowlin discusses the problems with totally "privatized" art in his letter. The Kansas Arts Commission has been extremely democratic in its allocation of funds supporting regional arts programs and does not deserve this heavy handed termination. The "privatized" commission Gov. Brownback created, I understand, will most likely do just what Liberty_One is concerned about.
I do not believe there is a country in the world today that does not in some way financially support the arts of their country in some way.
jhawkinsf 2 years ago
You might be right that government intervention might be harmful to art. But you might be wrong. There is no evidence to say that it "must" be harmful, as you say.
xclusive85 2 years ago
So, where is the evidence that not supporting the arts "must" be harmful? I'm not saying that I support the decision, but the logic goes both ways. According to the flying pig, no government support of the arts has not been tried.
"Every government from the advent of governments has supported the arts in some way."
TheFlyingPig 2 years ago
There are a lot of art organizations that simply would not exist were it not for the seed money the KAC provides through matching fund grants. A lot of these are in the rural areas of Western Kansas. Gov. Brownback has stated that he wants people to either stay in these areas or move there from other areas. If there are no cultural activities for them to enjoy, there are less incentives for them to do that.
It is NOT "government art" that is being discussed; but the government support of indigenous art programs. Very few individual artists are funded through these programs; although the individual artists do benefit by having these art organizations which give these artists venues for exposure. Many artists do exist only on their own without any support other than sales or admissions to performances; but they are very few and far between - they have steady day jobs (hopefully).
There is a vast difference between what you are saying and what actually exists.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
Here's the line of your reasoning. You are ideologically opposed to government-- almost anything that government is involved in is bad. Therefore, any government involvement in promoting art must be bad.
And your circular logic continues from there. No inconvenient facts to the contrary are acknowledged. How could they be? Government is almost universally bad, so by definition there can't possibly be anything positive about what the KAC does.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
In some places the arts do fine. In others, they do less fine-- or not at all.
The KAC helps the arts exist in many places where the arts wouldn't exist at all.
But that's one of those inconvenient facts that don't fit into your narrative, so you pretend it doesn't exist.
TheFlyingPig 2 years ago
Liberty_One: There are other places in Kansas (and the world) that are not Eastern Kansas. Rural Western Kansas has a lot of small town art centers and other arts venues that do not have the population base that Lawrence (and other western Kansas localities) have. As Gov. Brownback has stated, he wants to encourage reverse migration to the rural areas of Kansas. With out these cultural venues, there is not much to keep people there. The Arts have kept more than one small Kansas town viable. And the Kansas Arts Commission has had a large hand in supplying seed money and matching grants which make this possible.
We have a lot of people from Lawrence that have made one day trips to our little town - and they spend money in our town. With out the seed money from KAC, this would most likely not have happened.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
"The flawed assumption here is that government art is somehow necessary or desirable."
The flawed assumption here is that the KAC produces "government" art. The fact is that the KAC doesn't produce art of any kind. What it does is help create an environment in which art is encouraged, so that individual artists can express themselves in ways of their choosing.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
So I guess that means you support the KAC's continued funding?
geekin_topekan 2 years ago
Liberty is correct about one thing. The gubment will leave what is considered deviance to the republican controlled school boards. If BB has his way, the Czar of Education will control what our children study and learn of the arts. Gospel music, white Jesus and Laura Engels Wilder will be the extent of creativity in public schools. If children want to learn of Bob Marley, read Vonnegut or see Native Americans in roles other than as submissive savages, they will have to turn to the underground artistic community (again).
"I w-w-want MY America b-b-a-a-ck!" shrieked the middle aged republican woman last year on Fauxnews. The poor woman doesn't understand that the AMerica she w-w-ants back never existed in the first place. The arts brought the reality of our world into a too-real perspective for many people and they cant deal with it.
Ignorance as bliss, seems to be BB's plan for education in Kansas.
TheFlyingPig 2 years ago
I will agree with Geekin_Toekan that if Gov. Brownback's committee has its way, that is the "art" that committee will "approve". I doesn't have to be this way if concerned citizens VOTE!
I do ask: How many pieces of original art has Liberty_One (this goes for everyone else, too) actually purchased recently from a local artist or through a local art center? I am assuming most of you live in or near Lawrence - have YOU attended a performance or purchased an original art work from the Lawrence Art Center? If so, you have supported an institution that gets part of its funding from either the Kansas Arts Commission or the City of Lawrence, or both. If you have not partaken of the aesthetic benefits of this fantastic organization, I ask you to please do so! Don't miss out on what your local art center is doing - - - it is jewel in the Heart of Lawrence! AND - YOU are the reason it exists.
TheFlyingPig 2 years ago
PS - recently we were sent "stimulus" checks by the government. These were supposed to be spent on things that would stimulate the economy. I spent both of my checks on original art either directly from the artist or from a local art center. Again, I ask how many of you have done so?
Liberty275 2 years ago
"I do ask: How many pieces of original art has Liberty_One (this goes for everyone else, too) actually purchased recently from a local artist"
Liberty275 added 2 gorgeous hand-made lithographs by local artists to his collection last year. In recent years he has also volunteered for the local community theatre, spent hundreds of dollars buying art supplies for kids and teaching them how to use them.
I don't know what L1 has done.
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years ago
Speaking of art: http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/officials.html
booyalab 2 years ago
Moral of the story: Be a lawyer
booyalab 2 years ago
"What is left from ancient commercial civilizations such as Rome?"
All of the Romance languages, satire, mosaics, realistic statues, the arch and dome in architecture, reinforced concrete, advanced roads and road networks, classic stadium design, sanitation and aqueducts, the calendar, trumpets.
camper 2 years ago
"What is left from ancient commercial civilizations such as Rome?"
What will be left from our civilization? Can't say for sure, but probably a lot of styrofoam and plastic. Quite possibly our Economic Darwinisim who sacrificied long-term sustainability for short term gain. Just as Steinbeck predicts that the success of certain marine species inevitably leads to its demise. The same could be said of civilizations.
ignati5 2 years ago
Art was always subsidized by private patrons until the early twentieth century. It may be that patrons like the Borgias, the Medicis, Prince Esterhazy and the Archbishop of Salzburg count as "government" in that they belonged to the ruling oligarchies of the time, but then so did the Fricks, the Gugenheims, the Rockefellers and, for that matter,so do the Kochs. After 1920, artists would be subsidized by totalitarian or socialist governments (Soviet Union, Italy, Germany, Mexico) for purposes of propoganda. The USA got into the act under the New Deal, and much of the content was leftist, which is what was going around at the time. As in most other federal subsidies of that era,however, the goal was to provide employment, not to promote propoganda. Mr. Nowlin's heart may be in the right place, but his exposition is questionable.
Mixolydian 2 years ago
Wow, this LTE writer needs to put his thesaurus down and back slowly away from the computer before he hurts himself. At least he didn't use the word "ilk" or intentionally misspell a politicians name in a entirely un-witty way.
BTW, I always buy original art for my home and office. Usually from the artist directly, occasionally from a gallery, but never from the state or federal government.
BigPrune 2 years ago
What exactly did the Kansas Arts Commission do? Someone please explain......
jafs 2 years ago
Just check any of the other stories on the topic.
It's been explained numerous times already.
Moderate 2 years ago
Evisceration??? Hardly! The feds have a lot of money allocated to the "arts". Lawrence has dedicated money allocated to the "arts". Kansas has a bunch of money allocated to the "arts" at our public universities. Other communities in Kansas have money allocated to the “arts”. There is a lot of private money allocated to the "arts".
We certainly can have a debate about how to organize in Kansas to best serve the "arts" but evisceration is not what we have done. Exaggeration is not helping the cause. It makes us sound very “elitist”.
gudpoynt 2 years ago
Good point George. I agree, evisceration is completely the wrong term.
But make no mistake, services are being cut to save money.
Let's get back to the basics: are the services worth the money? Are the savings more beneficial than the programs? And to who?
Moderate 2 years ago
We can not pay properly for education so it may not be a leap to suggest that funding for the "arts" may need to shrink.
Of course we can raise taxes on the middle class as we always do (see library, police, gas, ect in commission agenda elsewhere). That said, i see an increasing resistance to every increasing taxes.
Just how do we keep supporting everything we have been without more taxes? How much tax is enough?
gudpoynt 2 years ago
Then why do the tax breaks for private industry, no matter the profitability or size, continue?
And I consider art programs educational in most cases. They are supplemental to education, not at odds with it.
Moderate 2 years ago
Go get him but let us wait until you do. Of course, those are mostly federal and the hole there is so laRGE we may never fill it.
There are "art" programs in our K-12 as well as secondary education already
BigPrune 2 years ago
If you read this letter to the editor out loud while imitating Dennis Miller, it is uncanny. It's like making Werner Klemperer sound like Werner von Braun.
The university entry standards must be higher than a Sherpa jury panel at the all-Nepal hash-brownie bake-off.
"As Kansas heads into a more paternalistic and low-paying future, a tedium vitae that lacks empathy and humane life goals, we can be assured that American artists, truly indigenous, at times marvelously bold and apt to create telluric upheavals, will have no public voice."
Sweet
Liberty275 2 years ago
You want art? Spend your money at a gallery. If you don't care enough to spend your own money on original works, you certainly don't care enough to spend mine.
You people are leeches.
rtwngr 2 years ago
If it isn't a velvet Elvis or Matador, it isn't art. If you want arts so bad, solicit private donors.
Liberty275 2 years ago
I've held a Rauschenberg in my hands (and help the conservator restore it) and met Jim Rosenquist, but if I could find a well done velvet Elvis, I'd buy it.
On a related note. my computer art teacher as an undergrad went to college with Jim Morrison.
gudpoynt 2 years ago
If the government is censoring art, that is unacceptable.
If the government is propagandizing through art, that is unacceptable.
If the government is spending inordinate amounts of tax revenues on art programs, that is unacceptable.
Fortunately, the government isn't doing any of those things.
Instead, the government is setting aside a very small percentage of the budget to foster art programs in an effort to promote a richer culture in Kansas.
No censorship, propagandizing. nor over spending is occurring in Kansas when it comes to funding art and art programs.
Rather, the idea has been working. That very small percentage of the budget that has been going to the KAC has indeed helped to foster art programs that have lead to a richer culture in our state.
What I keep hearing from much of the opposition is that, while they really do support the arts, they just don't think that taxpayers should.
To which I respond that the taxpayers aren't really "funding the arts". whatever that means. Rather, we are contributing a very, very small amount of money to help support the arts, particularly in places where private funding would be hard to come by.
And what is wrong with that? Why is that some big sin all of a sudden?
The Libertarian mindset has become so militant against supplying the government with tax dollars, that they resort to illogical arguments against programs that actually make sense. Particularly, they ignore dollar amounts when conducting their ideological cost-benefit analyses, in which ANY amount of an individual's money, however small, is more valuable than ANY level of service the government can provide, however beneficial.
Q: Who sucked all the rationality out of political debate?
Moderate 2 years ago
gudpoynt (anonymous) says…
I wrote a blog about the "common good" which has come to be defined as anything somebody says is needed. I define it as something that better than half of us benefit from and agree we benefit from. With the added requirement that it be of sufficient priority.
The problem with your argument is that you place your definition of the common good above other peoples' desires to keep what they have earned to spend as they like not as you like. To you and others there is no limit on what should be funded from the public purse.
When and if you succeed in latching on to the resources of the elites in this country to fund what you want I will stand with you for more funding for the "arts". Otherwise it is I that will pay the bill and you are already taking about 40% of what I earn. That is enough!
jafs 2 years ago
That's an interesting definition of the common good.
I wonder if substantial agreement could be reached about it or not.
"benefit from", "agree", and "priority" are all a bit subjective.
But I think it would be an interesting, and productive discussion to have.
Moderate 2 years ago
Tried once - no takers
Commenting has been disabled for this item.