patronising cunt, I actually enjoyed your comments once.
Obviosly offended all you sensitive artistic types.
Anyone else here provided hard evidence other than 'all art is cool and its a matter of taste'
' we have lots of cool art at our campus'
You think you are orphins or what?Theres lotsa cool art around the world, like someone said they spend more art in Berlin than they do in the US.
If you are all too piss weak to question the system then you deserve George W and his bunch of cronies.
Feed me im an artist
Electronic Music Discussion
I'm not offended.
I'm sorry that you are.
why would working at jack in the box devalue your commission are you to lofty to work there, arent they the lot that need to have their minds broadend by art, maybe you could converse with the 'plebs' and educate them whilst working with them
Electronic Music Discussion
I initially had no idea what you were going on about.
I've removed all of my replies.
I'm sorry to have gotten completely swept up in a misunderstanding.
ok, now that everyone has had a nice calming night of sleep, i have one question.
do you mean questioning the system of who gets the commisions, or what public funding is used for by the artist to make sure the product is thoughtful and incisive?
and one last thing. i guess i may have a personal and perhaps more general view of public funding. Gertrude Stein was a public funder of the arts. without her patronage, Picasso, Matisse, Braque...would have never been able to survive as artists.
and, in my defense, creating art is not a hobby for me, although it may be for some. I donnot wish to discount either role. simply, like racing perhaps, there are those that perform it when finances and time allow. then there are those, bicycle, car, horse and so on, that are fortunate and talented enough to do it professionally. They do not buy their own horses. They do not earn their keep by sweeping out the race track afterward.
do you see what i am getting at.
I'm not saying artists deserve more. i say artists simply deserve the same.
i appreciate the lucid debate. over this medium, you can really see the development of an argument (argument is as good thing).
being forced to describe your stance, and maybe even a bit of your percieved value, can really be inspiring.
[quote] 'What do i consider public art ?'........well yknow those spaces left behind after a building, railway,bus station etc has been erected and what is left is a windtunnel or badly designed services path that is pretty much de humanising so to make things right the powers that be make some piss weak gesture in filling it up with a commissioned piece of work that is like I say ill considered and some what token just for the sake of being culturally aware.
it seems as though youre more 'anti-system' than anti poor art/design when it really should be the art you dislike that you should be irritated with, imo.
ok obviously this subject wants to continue,
'Artists simply get the same'. May I ask the same as whom?
I do not consider art a hobby, if you knew my knowledge and how I get some of my cash by teaching aesthetics and the other half of it by applying it well that wouldnt be considered.
I have countless friends who are artists and have acquired much of their work.
A bit of back ground, when i was a lass many years ago I lived under a state government that was totally enlightened in its social policies this included much funding into the arts, much of these policies have become the everyday in Australia now . We have large Art Institutions, Arts Festivals and a relatively large grant system for artists.
I have allways been totally supportive of this and its had a big impression on my thinking and action.
Now as I say I was a wee lass..over time my views have become somewhat cynical.
These institutions have become un answerable to anyone and quite a powerfull political lobby.
In its wake I have seen many a great thing produced by this..I have also seen a lot of crap.
It takes a formula to fill out a grant application of which you can now hire people to do this for you( one could say fair enough if you are visual then not necessarily literal,but then maybe the grant application needs to take this into consideration)
Im not sure how things work in the states and this could be what lies at the confusion of this post.
Maybe our arts community has got it good over here and you poor buggars are starving for food and recognition.I dont know.
What I see in public spaces and often funded from the public purse is terrible pieces of work, poorly constructed, often a saftey risk, trite pieces of work that seem to have only put there to suit some kind of buearocratic wrangle to satisfy the arts councils and the developers.
It is my love of art that I find this insulting. I have the greatest respect for improving the quality of public space and the visual impact of private spaces on the public realm..thats what I do full time, its not a hobby.
but I believe that there needs to be a few checks on the system that seems to have carte blanche over the aquisition and handouts of public art in public spaces.
If a building goes up its plans and impact have to go through a series of interested and not so interested parties.Does this occur with public art? Not here.
Whats wrong with the broader community having such a say in these affairs?
[quote]Originally posted by tally-ho:
PS art has exsisted for centuries with out public money, public sponsered art is a relatively new phenonima.
Like I said Im am not against public funding for art, but there are elements of it that need questioning.
uuuhhhh.....ever heard of Pompeii? Or well, the Greco-Roman world in general? Most of the statues and buildings in our museums and ruins were all commisioned...you think marble is free?
was that work commissioned by the state or church was it payed out of the public purse?
did this work allow for the artists personal view point or was it commissioned to sanctify the power that commissioned it?
marble aint free no, niether was personal expression
TALLY-HO KNOWS THIS ALREADY, SO NEVERMIND
[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: justsomeguy ]
History 101..yep know that
does any one have any points on the issue I origionally raised about the contemporary system of public art that i first raised?
Could some one please enlighten me on how the system works for US artists so maybe I can understand why you are all so anti my opinion?
well, i can't speak for everyone in the united states, but i'm hungry right now (hee hee)
i think we understand each other very well, and with that...
you snuck that last one in on me
basically, like everything else in this country, after you apply for the one local grant, you may recieve it 5 months later, then you have three weeks before the details on how it was used is due.
only acedemia recieves federal grants (i've tried) and if you want to get a regular series or long running show funded, you must get so many promises and letters of intent, it's almost impossible to co-ordinate.
all the insallations i've done were private sector, business's and such, so can't help you much there, but, i'm only 27 so hopefully that will come in time. but those who have gotten them that i know, have been well compensated.
i've gotta run...more in a bit
no, now that i think of it, that's about it.
well there is one more thing. the wonderful part about all this is that with a relatively oppresive governing social and political culture, the underground is flourishing. there is great art being made, i am just an advocate for these artists to at least recieve some compensation for their very necissary and valuable product. i mean, we have welfare for those that do not work, we have goverment assistance for inaction and inability, but no support for the tireless work of talented artists.
i just realized that that is the most frustrating thing.
we have a million programs to support those unwilling to work, but artists, who work ceaselessly, starve and shiver.
that's what's fucked. here anyway.
thanks to everyone for this. i really learned something about myself.
[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: SelectionIll ]
spose thats what I was getting on about by using musicians as an example, because they rely on themselves for much finance, it gives them more artistic freedom. Not having to answer to a state organisation and deal with politics of such. And we all know how much music has changed popular culture.
Its unfortunate that oppressive governments breed creative and healthy cultural movements via default but that the way it be. And very few ..no..governments will financially support a movement that doesnt agree with its policies. But on the bright side it does give the artist more power to not answer the system and create their own.Maybe that brings us back to the public funding of art.we all know how the visual impact of public places can have a control and reinforcement of ideology, so if the system became more democratic and transclucent one would hope that would be far more beneficial.
Of course oppressive governments are going to pay to keep people dumb and quiet.......its all very tragic really
intellectual terrorism BHAH
Hence my stoner want of tagging
But hey Selection1II, ive just read your http yknow this allready
ya gotta click on the big noise banner top left.
look at some of the vids from our last show on the 9th of january. there'll be another on the 20th of feb.
i pay for all that stuff.
i hope i didn't give you the wrong impression.
i'm one of the good guys.
i hate my mother
actually, we're all quite good, our little group.
check the website again after the 20th to see more.
we're, none of us, dumb.
[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: SelectionIll ]