Text 14322, 90 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 18:22:29 av Carl (692.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
Amy Guskin wrote:
>>> 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.

The difference is that I want to return more (not all) control
to the individual so that n this case you could create and support
the arts yourself...and even get to choose which art *you* feel
most deserving of support.

Some just want to to impose their idea of what's fair  an proper
rather than accept someone else's.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)