Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] government funding of the arts
From: Adam Bridge <abridge@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:46:38 -0800

On 2003-12-11 KCassidy@asc.upenn.edu (Kyle Cassidy) thoughtfully wrote: 

>for all intents and purposes, there is no government
>funding of the arts in america.
>

Bull. 

There are tons of local projects all over the United States where art in public
places is funded by local governments and local businesses under government
mandate.

In my opinion that's the RIGHT way because the people closest to the work will
fund it and have a say in how it is selected. This doesn't mean that everyone
will like it, or even that a majority will, but at least there's a process.

The new terminal of the Sacramento airport is great example. The stained glass
windows, the sculptures in the baggage area, the tile floor in the main
concourse are all works of art, funded by the public, and enjoyed by the public
on a daily basis.

Here in Davis there are many sculptures in parks and public areas put there as a
part of the arts program. Some of them I don't like very well but others are
quite wonderful.

Maybe it's super to have an agency in Washington that hands out commissions, but
from my point of view it's a huge ego trip for the arts foundation people and it
doesn't mean diddly to me and I don't benefit from it while the elite NYC crowd
probably do.

Driving across the country, something I do almost every year, I see many small
art projects where local artists are nurtured by  local government and business.
This is a good thing because it means the money funding the art is local.

So it's just WRONG to say that public financing for the arts doesn't exist. It's
just not as big at the federal level as it used to be.

Good thing, too.

Adam Bridge
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html