After giving away dozens of oil paintings to people from craigslist last night, I saw this post on the artblog about an upcoming panel concerning how much public money should be spent on the arts.
Lately, I've been curious about the function and value of art in contemporary society, so perhaps I should go to the panel and let some experts answer all of my questions.
1 comment:
Ugh ... the question you pose occupies a gray area we'd rather were black and white.
OF COURSE the arts are worth money -- money is the only value with which we can trade our desire to have and enjoy works of beauty.
But at what point to we force people at gunpoint, as it were (government funding), to pay attention to only certain works over others, or enrich only certain artists over others? The yardstick is anything but objective.
On the one hand, you have Van Gogh, toiling in purgatory until death crowns his efforts. On the other, you have those slimeballs who delight in destroying the symbols of people's deepest beliefs (i.e. urinating on Christ, etc.), who enjoy copious largesse from Uncle Sugar.
Not sure this conundrum will ever have an answer.
In the meantime, though, as Pope Someone Or 'Nother said about pornography, I say about good art: I know it when I see it.
*shameless maternal plug alert*
And yerz is IT :)
Post a Comment