Text 14241, 83 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 01:43:30 av Wendy of NJ (611.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:50:05 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Wendy of NJ wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 21:01:10 GMT, Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:52:14 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>>> (in article <clfs3313ulmk1sr42be5v3vsv6ltdnm5m5@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:19:17 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.  On one hand, you have people that object to certain
>>>>> types of art (Maplethorpe, a crucifix in a bottle of urine, etc)
>>>>> that offend people and object to using their money to fund such
>>>>> things.  On the other hand you have artists that claim that art
>>>>> *must* be controversial or it isn't really art.  Then again theer
>>>>> are a lot of people that are happy just looking at painting of a
>>>>> bowl of fruit, but let's leave that be for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, who decides?  Should people be forced to pay for something
>>>>> that offends them?  In the case of the crucifix mentioned above,
>>>>> if that's art, is it also art to create something equally as
>>>>> controversial with a picture of Mohammed?  What about Martin
>>>>> Luther King?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who do we define as qualified to judge what art is for everyone
>>>>> else?  You blow this off as trivial, buit I don't think that it is.
>>>>
>>>> Art isn't judged by whether it's offensive or not. Maplethorpe's
>>>> photographs, for example, were quite beautiful. The turd sculpture
>>>> that Giuliani hated, OTOH, was pretentious rot. Some can tell the
>>>> difference and some can't, just as some can play instruments and
>>>> some can't; it's a matter of gift, exposure, and, it seems,
>>>> genetics (some people don't react emotionally to art, and so it has
>>>> no meaning to them). <<
>>>
>>> Actually Josh, I think that _most_ people react emotionally to art.
>>> You just have to get the right art in front of their eyes or ears.
>>> And this is a point I've neglected to make in all of this
>>> button-pressing stuff that has me so irritated: art has a way of
>>> touching people in ways that other things cannot.  Emotionally,
>>> spiritually (if you go in for that sort of thing).  It is important
>>> to foster art, and artists, because without them, everything is
>>> blunt reality, with no form, no way to explore deeper feelings.
>>> There are things that art can do for you that nothing else can.
>>> Secret places where art can touch you, where nothing else can reach.
>>> My gods, what a better world this would be if we spent even a
>>> _tenth_ of the money the government spends on war, on art instead!
>>> And a tenth more on science!
>>>
>>> Amy
>>
>> This has hit a bit of a point... there is a *spiritual* component to
>> art that does not really exist in many other forms of expression
>> (maybe someone will be able to point out a spiritual bit of code
>> someplace).
>>
>> In some ways art is like religion - there is a huge variety of them
>> and people differ in their reactions to it (liking some, hating
>> others, indifferent or unmoved by even more).
>>
>> I want to suggest that art be placed in the same area (as far as tax
>> is concerned) as religion. I'm not exactly sure how this could be
>> justified, though.
>>
>
>On the flip side, how about a favorable tax break for people
>that support the arts?   If there is one, some addition means of
>letting people donate. A "Patron exemption."

That already exists, to some degree. It's called a charitable
contriubution and it's deductable.

I suppose then that one could conceiveably use the current rules and
set up one's artistic endeavors as a 501(c)3 corporation.

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