Posted on 03/31/2017 1:18:18 PM PDT by 198ml
Not every good thing in life needs to be funded by the federal taxpayers.
And removing federal subsidies for arts programs will not mean the death of art in America.
Yet recipients of grants from the National Endowment for the Arts would have you believe that cutting $719,000 in federal spending on New Hampshire arts programs would crush painting, sculpture and music in the Granite State.
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
Why do Artists have to have special welfare ?
If you want to stick a crucifix in urine, and call it art, do it on your own time, and your own dime.
Very very few artists get funded by this program.
Funding for “the arts” ends up going to communists who crap on a table and call it art.
Because they want their paintings, sculptures, etc to be worth millions, just like Picasso, Renoir, Van Gogh, etc etc etc. But, they’re too stupid and lazy to understand that the artwork those guys put together, so long ago, probably wasn’t worth all that much, at the time. It was only years later, that their stuff was worth millions.
These NEAs grubs, want all the fame and riches, NOW!!!!! Typical liberals.
Could never figure out why we fund groups like this. But science has always been supported by the government.
You get a government grant to figure out how to do something, you get it for five years. At the end of five years you had better have some results.
Superior science and technology gives a country a military advantage.
Something to keep in mind as an increasing amount of our tech base is being handed to foreign H1Bs.
Too many of these grants go to politically oriented artists. If they were only to help support small museums around the country, that would be different, but they don’t.
Talent sells.
If nobody is buying, find something productive to do.
Hint: Rake marks in asphalt, laid on a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood is NOT “art”.
(seen in Denver studio years ago)
If they want to make a living with art they need to be able to sell their product. Otherwise they should pull the cart like the rest of us. Same with self employed people saying they can’t afford health insurance— time to find new employment.
They don’t. Great artists will always make it to the top eventually in a free country.
The Marxists needed to elevate ugly and vulgar art to destroy civil society-—so they needed taxpayers to fund the perverted and evil artists who wouldn’t have a “chance” in a free market. They got control of museums so they could elevate “DADA” or other idiot stuff. They wanted us (socialism/welfare) to fund our own demise and cultural rot (to destroy the virtue in children raised in vulgar, evil culture, to destroy that desire for Excellence (virtue).
Welfare destroys the Merit system and competition which is necessary for great, flourishing art. In Florence, during the High Renaissance, they had competitions all the time open to any artists. Brunelleschi won the contest to complete the church (Duomo).
1965 - “The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic excellence. It was created by an act of the U.S. Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government.”
1963 - The Naked Communist
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “ Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
Nuff said.
Sometimes for a laugh go and see the display of senior art projects at any University. The level of skill is pathetic. I don’t know what they are teaching these kids bit it sure aint how to draw.
NEA - National Endowment for Agitprop
I'm sure that much of the subsidy money winds up sticking to the fingers of the enlightened bureaucrats who get to evaluate candidate artists, decide who gets the grants, administer and monitor the grants, etc. They are on salary. The influential constituency for many grant programs is often not the ultimate recipients but the overseeing bureaucrats siphoning off large "administrative costs".
Just conservatives right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.