Text 14262, 83 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 03:06:57 av Amy Guskin (632.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007 23:03:38 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <8aGdnRCduPiUp9zbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com>):

> Wendy of NJ wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 11:40:53 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:15:00 -0400, Carl wrote
>>>> (in article <3cCdnSzHU73ey6DbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:lqkq33d01agchqc7hup08ssg6ujtm4c39c@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:53:45 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> I think there would be plenty of art if the government stayed out
>>>>>> of it. ------
>>>>> 
>>>>> But not plenty of "serious" art. At one time, that was subsidized
>>>>> by the aristocracy. Now that the aristocracy has faded, there's
>>>>> plenty of financial support for art with mass appeal, but
>>>>> relatively little for
>>>>> art of the more elevating kind.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of Tom Clancy and J. K.
>>>>> Rowling. But I wouldn't want to do without Seamus Heaney and Don
>>>>> Giovanni.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----
>>>>> We're much more likely to fund the next 5000 versions of Britney
>>>>> Spears. <<
>>>> 
>>>> No, we're _not_.  That's not the kind of art that gets subsidized,
>>>> except by the buying public.
>>> 
>>> Okay... I'll bite.  Who gets to define what art is?  WHo gets to
>>> decide
>>> who a worthy artist is?
>>> 
>>>> The point is, that is the nearly the
>>>> ONLY kind of music you'll get without funding/grants/subsidies.
>>>> Most of Handel's works were paid for by patrons -- how would you
>>>> feel if we didn't have those works because those patrons thought
>>>> that he ought to just have his day job, and that if he wanted to
>>>> create art he should just do it in his spare time?
>>> 
>>> Please note that a patron was not always a monarch and did not
>>> always imply government money, nor were Handel's works the result of
>>> a blanket government program for all artists.
>>> 
>>> There are galleries with shows of from new painters, photographers,
>>> etc.  I don't think that new musicals on broadway are government
>>> subsidized.   It is my undersatnding that this area has more theater
>>> seats than NYC does.
>>> 
>>> Also note that on PBS you are quite likely to see a tag indicating
>>> something like "This show brought to in part by..." which would seem
>>> to show that people and companies are willing to support shows
>>> directly other than basic sitcoms, etc.  A number of shows on cable
>>> channels THC, TLC, DSC, etc., are also supported in this way.
>> 
>> Excuse me, but the companies who donate their money to PBS do it
>> because they get a TAX BREAK.
>> 
>> the foundations exist to protect that money from the government (it's
>> a tax shelter).
> 
> Exactly!  So do more of that.
> 
> It's better to convince someone to donate voluntarily than it is to seize
> money from everyone by force. <<

But the government _does_ seize my money by force, for lots of things that I 
don't want to support and don't think we need.  I'd much prefer to divert 
some of those taxes to the arts.

Amy
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)