Monday, February 2, 2009

A New Arts Deal For US(A)

As usual, because they once got in a snit about some "nudie" photos a few decades back and haven't recovered from the horror of the human form yet (unless it's shown bound, gagged, humiliated, beaten and tortured in souvenir pics from a US military prison), the stinkin' Republicans got themselves righteously enraged about a mere $50 million for the arts in the Big Billions Bailout plan.

My Smart Wife and her dumb husband (hey, that's me, he's writin' about me!) were talking this weekend about this and were as usual dumbfounded by the pettiness of the stinkin' Republicans. (I think I shall hereafter forever refer to them as such). We talked about the WPA and the incredible art that came out of government monies during the Depression. We talked about ways that money could be spent to provide jobs and improve lives. We talked and talked.

But some dude over at Daily Kos beat me to writing about it. So go there and read this incredible, awesome piece about why the stinkin' Republicans are (as usual) completely wrong about art and why we need even more money for Art in Amerika (Trademarked and Registered and Copyrighted by me, the 'monkey).

Me, I'm gonna cruise down to our local post office, built during the Depression (like quite a few buildings in our fair city) and enjoy the beautiful mural which covers one large wall, likewise a gift to the future from a government-paid artist of the past.


Anonymous said...

C'mon Ed, Nazz.....your pal has made five wacked out,ill considered postings. And nothing from the two of you, his core audience?

gomonkeygo said...

One can always count on Anonymous for fun, though!

"He was the bravest of them all...."

Identify the above lyrical quote and win a big hug from yourself because I ain't givin' anything out.

gomonkeygo said...

Dear Anon:

I forgot to ask...what's "wacked out" or "ill considered" (a turn of phrase I very much like, btw - kudos!) about supporting the arts and artists? The "arts" puts many, many millions of dollars into our economy every year (I read billions in one study) and employs hundreds of thousands of people. That's gotta be good, eh?

My own community has a very active arts scene which I participate in to my own limited abilities (not on the art side, but the support of the arts side). Without government monies to help get things such as our various festivals off the ground or promoted, we might never accomplish them.

Throughout history, monarchs and rulers, popes and kings and queens, have supported art and artists. While their reasons were usually completely selfish and self-promoting in doing so, those of us now alive certainly benefit from it.

In the same way, in the United States, the public benefits from public art and government support of the arts. Generations of Americans have had their lives enriched thanks to government art funding.

Okay, done for now. This was more of a continuation of my post I guess than anything else. But I was curious what you were referring to.

Take care,

The 'monkey

Anonymous said...

I'm not a republican, but what you're saying is bullshit. If people want crappy art, they can pay for it themselves. If no one wants to pay enough to support "art," it shouldn't be produced at my expense. It's pretty much theft otherwise. Goddamn handouts for everyone.

It's also a violation of the constitution for the federal government to pay for it. I'm sure you whined about Bush stomping the consitution, so did I, but now you're promoting doing the same (try reading the fucking 10th amendment)? Oh, wait, it's your precious cause, I guess it's ok.

gomonkeygo said...

Tenth Amendment?

The fact that you use an "amendment" to the Constitution to support this idea actually nullifies it because the amendments basically exist in order to "amend" the Constitution, to make it a living document. It basically means that Congress can do what is needed, when it is needed. This is the consensus reality on the 10th.

The non-consensus reality, from which I assume you argue, is that the Constitution is set-in-stone, unchangeable, and that most Federal laws should therefore be repealed or ignored, especially if one doesn't like them. That's an extreme minority viewpoint on this issue, though.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that's the most interesting interpretation of the constitution I've heard in a long while. The first amendment is an amendment too, is it not? The "bill of rights" is the first ten amendments, monkey. Sounds like you don't believe in them, though, or would rather just interpret them however you feel. OK, then, "freedom of speech" is a living amendment, and it means you shouldn't be allowed to criticize your government on the internet. And the fifth amendment can be molded into justification for your government to spy on you. Right?

Was there another amendment that repealed the 10th and basically said "the federal government can spend money on whatever it wants whenever it wants?" No, there was not. Just because it is rampant today doesn't mean it's right. Just because so many presidents has gotten away with prosecuting wars overseas doesn't mean it's right.

Yes, just about all federal laws should be repealed, and it's not because I like one over the other, it's because they overstep the bounds of what the federal government's power should have been. You don't get it. People like you deserved George Bush, since you're the ones who helped make the federal government into the monstrosity that it is today.

It's either the right fascists forcing their morals on the rest of us or the left fascists like you, forcing your morals down our throat.

You've already argued yourself into a circle. Try reading a bit about why that 10th amendment exists. Try understanding a little bit about economics before you think pissing away money on whatever lunacies your vaunted government wishes is a good idea.

Those who live by the sword, by the way, die by the sword. The left fascists won't be in control of the government forever, and you'll be whining again about the right fascists before you know it.

Wise up, friend.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, picture this: The GOP comes back into power in 4 years. They decide to force the NEA to fund only white male, conservative art. Lots of boring old paintings, and festivals featuring marches, and plays about the glorious wars of the US. Mapplethorpe and Koons are imprisoned for obscenity. You still want to fund the NEA then?

It's always fine for the gov't to spend other people's money when it's things you like, isn't it. But when the shoe's on the other foot...

gomonkeygo said...

Well, that was worth a chuckle.

They would never continue funding the NEA. They would cut the funding and be gone with it.

I doubt they'd try to do what you say about Mapplethorpe. He's dead. And Koons - the guy who makes like giant balloon animal sculpture crap? They'd be laughed out of court. Even the Republicans aren't that stupid. Or are they?

Maybe trying to imprison a dead artist and a guy who makes balloon animals would be the perfect metaphor for the Republican's struggle against beauty! Futile and moronic all at once! It's brilliant, completely brilliant, I tells ya.

Thanks for the idea.

Anonymous said...

Hi, this is the original "anonymous" who has posted here frequently. The fellow who has responded starting on
Feb 6 is not me, the original.
But he did a pretty nice job

A"living constitution" means what ever I want it to
And I, like most people, didn't like the idea that my tax dollars were being spent on pictures of men with bullwhips inserted into their anuses. Which was the main objection to Mapplethorpe's work. Some of which was good, but if it is so good, he could have sold it at a gallery. That and the Andres Serrano "sculpture" which was a crucifix suspended in a jar of his own urine. Brilliant
I wish these guys would adress Islam in their work, we'd see them beheaded on Youtube within a year. They are not going to do that though, are they?
And the best art is that which is created outside of gov't support. Like the stuff we download online
Beatles, Stones etc....done without gov't support
Music that made an impact and will be enjoyed for decades
That's about it for me, I tire of arguing with such an "open-minded liberal"
Best of luck to you

gomonkeygo said...

A great example of arts-funding giving back to a community, "stimulus"-wise:

gomonkeygo said...

More good common sense reasons why we need government spending on the arts and need it now: