You should log onto Youtube and see how many Youtubers receive donations through Patreon.
People are willing to pay for things they see value in even when they are getting it for free.
Yep…Shakespeare with all those interracial, lesbian, gay, incestual, polygamous and themes of war and revenge have literally destroyed whole civilizations.
And don’t get me started on “Disney”…
1 Like
For the same reason basic science research that ‘people clearly aren’t willing to pay for personally needs to be propped up by government money’–because it enriches the commons.
4 Likes
This is a fair question, and I said as much in my first post.
As for this…
I understand that, but fortunately for us, the U.S. isn’t North Korea or Stalinist Russia (yet, anyway). When you look through the last few years’ NEA budget and find an item that specifically funded “propaganda” I will be happy to discuss this point. Helping a midsize opera house retain an artistic director so they can put on a production of La Bohemme isn’t exactly a Nazi propaganda film.
It’s kind of hilarious that you are arguing against government-funding of the arts for fear of propaganda, but also all in favor of our chief executive’s FAKE NEWS accusations hurled at our free press and supporting a President that literally held up a Breitbart News story during a TV interview as support that something he wants people to believe actually happened.
2 Likes
I caught that, AG!
1 Like
That may be the intended affect but that’s not how things work out. Government has continued to corrupt science.
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:5746, topic:223365, full:true”]
I understand that, but fortunately for us, the U.S. isn’t North Korea or Stalinist Russia (yet, anyway). When you look through the last few years’ NEA budget and find an item that specifically funded “propaganda” I will be happy to discuss this point. [/quote]
Question: Did the US engage in any propaganda efforts during the second world war?
I’m not sure what you mean here?
You’re against the concept “government funding for the arts” because that money might, heaven forbid, be used for propaganda.
You’re supporting a President whose chief of staff was a founding member of a far-right “news” outlet (far closer to “propaganda” than anything supported by the NEA budget) who recently stated that the free press was the “opposition party” and that “the media should keep its mouth shut and listen for awhile.”
2 Likes
Let’s see…Per you, the government corrupts science. but per Zep on the Pharma thread, the private sector corrupts science.
Apparently, there’s no hope for science. Time to bust out those healing crystals, I guess.
5 Likes
Me too but it’s tricky. My lineage in the art world is in stained glass with a company that originated in Europe farther back than any history or documentation goes. I know and have worked with some great ones, and those dudes bring it hard. If they weren’t doing that, they would be doing something awesome, no matter what because that is the cloth they are cut from.
I can see where educational programs are of great social benefit from a personal enrichment standpoint and to introduce and possibly produce some great talent. The part I don’t buy is the “if he wasn’t doing this- he would be doing that…” argument. Like if a kid isn’t painting or somehow learning to express some inner talent- he’s gonna be slinging dope and those are the only two options.
The other part is the plight of the starving artist. I figure that if it doesn’t pay the bills on its own merit, then have fun. Enjoy your talent, but don’t quit your day job. A friend of mine is the lead tenor(I think?) at the East Liberty Presbyterian church over your way. He loves singing and is great at it- but also works during the week.( actually, considering the size of the pool through out town, your wife probably knows or has met and worked with him at some point.)
So I guess I have a so-so maybe harsh opinion of funding for art, in that if it doesn’t support itself, either through philanthropists and or its own ability- what ever the endeavor may be- it should be done out of dedication, rather than through subsidy.
1 Like
When there is no goal to produce a good or provide a service the ultimate goal becomes to be published and get name recognition. A lot of the time these studies results are not even able to be reproduced.
Why do you think much of these studies are put behind pay walls when they are already paid for by the government?
Breitbart isn’t government funded last I checked?
Addressing your post in reverse order…
I agree, this is about where I’ve landed as well, and has been the topic of many discussions with my wife as she processes the rage from her friends Facebook posts. I think she gets it now. She’s still pretty fired up by the sorts of memes that show how small the NEA budget is relative to other things, but she has accepted the broader point you’ve laid out eloquently here: that “cutting federal funding” for the arts is not the same as “hating” the arts.
99% chance they know each other. Do you mean “Shadyside Presbyterian” or “East Liberty Presbyterian” ? My wife is in the choir at Shadyside Pres, but even if it’s the other one, good chance they know each other through some other means. Does he sing in any other local groups, like Mendelssohn choir or Camerata?
And yes, I agree with this as well. A running joke in the arts community among people in my wife’s shoes (good enough to make some cash from singing; not good enough to get rich from singing; can hover just above the poverty line on their own, but best served by marrying someone with a well-paying day job and health insurance) is that people like me are the greatest supporters of the arts there is, because we’re the ones subsidizing the arts by funding their careers. Our situation isn’t quite that dire - she hustles in other ways (teaching yoga, teaching voice lessons, etc) and would survive on her own, but she probably couldn’t live in the apartment building we live in or drink as much wine as we like to drink without me playing the role of high (ha! I wish) earning spouse.
We’re basically just mirroring each other on this, and that’s what I’ve been working through with my wife. I love the arts. I want them to succeed. But I also see the argument that federal tax dollars probably do not have to be shunted towards the arts. They should be able to make it through their own hustle to sell tickets and solicit donations. And that brings me to this…
Anyways, enough of that, I have to get back to arguing with raj.
1 Like
This is a valid criticism. I have discussed my feelings on the current state of our scientific community several times on other threads.
This is not a valid criticism.
It used to be a valid criticism, but the NIH acknowledge that far too many studies were not being properly disseminated in a timely manner, and thus issued…
Government-funded studies must disseminate their findings publicly, through registration at clinicaltrials.gov as well as in a public posting. The NIH recently announced that grant recipients who do not adhere to this policy will be barred from receiving future grant funding.
It is true that many scientific journals have paywalls, but the primary results of all government-funded studies are available to the public. Furthermore, the NIH public-access policy requires scientists to submit final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds to PubMed Central, which is an archive of full-texts.
2 Likes
If you’re arguing that a ‘publish or perish’ mindset among academic institutions has a downside, I won’t disagree. But that mindset is a function of the academic zeitgeist, not the government funders.
Because the journals in which they are published have to defray their operating costs. Plus, what @ActivitiesGuy said.
1 Like
It can also lead to a superficial and inaccurate conclusion. Not that I’d expect you to grasp something that requires more than 140 characters to explain.
1 Like
That distinction gets lost in the shuffle way too quickly by most.
Easliberdy.(hahaha) He’s done a bunch of other stuff too, but I’m too easily confused by what is what to say for sure. I know there were a couple of things with the symphony. Fwiw- his first name is Todd, in his late 40’s-early 50’s at this point. I probably shouldn’t divulge much more over the interwebs though.
No need to divulge more.
If he sings with “the symphony” I am pretty sure they’ll know each other.
That is pretty rough huh? Admittedly, I am an ignoramus when it comes to the performing arts.
The arts are great whether it is opera or a local playhouse that keeps the classic plays alive. We are having a local argument over this very topic this year. Some want our City to stop funding the local playhouse claiming that the money spent could be used for improvements for the streets and sidewalks. And it’s hard to argue that these things are not important. But, in the end man does not live by bread alone. Exposing children, young adults and even those who have been around but never had the opportunity to see a live play is important as well. Things like this are able to change people emotionally for the better. It is what I like to call life enriching. Yes, streets and sidewalks are a must. But life must be more than just that. Certainly there is room in every budget for these life enriching events…plays, opera, ballet. Even if it means that local politicians take a small pay cut.
3 Likes