Rick Santorum Santorum voted to keep National Endowment of the Arts funding in fear of cultural vacuum

the NEA is actually a really good thing....


They provide stipends to masters of the arts whether it be Jazz, Literature, Art and so on. Great pianists like Marianna McPartland were awarded things from the NEA and she goes all the way back to Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker days....


As a musician, the NEA is a good way of preserving American Arts & Culture.
 
Still, there's no reason why it shouldn't be funded through non-coercive means.
 
When someone receives a stipend from them, the government doesn't tell them what to do with it.

It is up to the artist to create and mold whatever they feel can better society as whole...


I understand what you mean....and agree it shouldn't be with force or coercion, but it is a great chance for true, amazing, professional artists who have been working their entire lives devoted to something....
 
the NEA is actually a really good thing....


They provide stipends to masters of the arts whether it be Jazz, Literature, Art and so on. Great pianists like Marianna McPartland were awarded things from the NEA and she goes all the way back to Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker days....


As a musician, the NEA is a good way of preserving American Arts & Culture.

Yes, because without the NEA there will be no more great artists, musicians, and culture...The NEA is a load of bunk, and is mostly used to further State propaganda, not to mention that, that even under minarchist doctrine is insane. The Government has no role to manage or mold society, it's entire purpose is the safeguard of the liberties of the people, no? I'm tired of politicians presuming their ownership of myself and my thoughts.
 
the NEA is actually a really good thing....


They provide stipends to masters of the arts whether it be Jazz, Literature, Art and so on. Great pianists like Marianna McPartland were awarded things from the NEA and she goes all the way back to Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker days....


As a musician, the NEA is a good way of preserving American Arts & Culture.

Every program has an advocate. The question is, in my mind anyway, whether the same can be provided for as a private charity - and does it really serve the general welfare?

BTW - I used to listen to Marian's show, "Piano Jazz", for years. I also dig Oscar Peterson. Big band jazz was a musical staple in my household for many years.
 
Last edited:
Jazz music is one, if not the only, true American music....

These days nobody cares anymore about that music, but everyone claims to care about American ideals?

Again, when an artist is awarded a stipend is because they've demonstrated a long career of helping influence culture on their own, the government does NOT have a say on what they do with that money. It is up to the artist to decide and create art that will continue to show what American Art & Culture may represent....

so furthering State propaganda i dont know about that...
 
Jazz music is one, if not the only, true American music....

These days nobody cares anymore about that music, but everyone claims to care about American ideals?

Again, when an artist is awarded a stipend is because they've demonstrated a long career of helping influence culture on their own, the government does NOT have a say on what they do with that money. It is up to the artist to decide and create art that will continue to show what American Art & Culture may represent....

so furthering State propaganda i dont know about that...

But you do concede that its not the federal government's role to "Stimulate" the arts, right?
Speaking for myself, I'm not arguing the value of Jazz... I love Jazz.

Here's an example of how its supposed to be done: http://www.nomrf.org/index.html
 
im an artist...how do *I* procure some of this redistributed wealth.
oh, by the way, i WONT be put crucifixes in jars and peeing in them...

can i still haaz da moneyz?
ill use it to pay my loans!
 
@Brushfire I agree with you on the principle of the matter of course! We both love Ron Paul and follow that ideal, no doubt!

I too listen to Marianne's Piano Jazz every week on Wednesdays....

However, I have a soft spot for the NEA because it allows people like Marianne, Oscar Peterson and all the greats of the past to not "stimulate" the arts but to create art based on their own life, history and personal feelings. I kind of see it more as a scholarship....but that's my opinion. I won't force it onto anyone....
 
@jkr People awarded stipends have worked their entire lives in the subject and created influence on their own because of their art. The NEA is simply recognizing those people and allowing them a place among the Master of the Arts who have had an influence on society on their own during the course of their life.....
 
Dan is an example why nothing will change. There is always someone who will fight you, even when acknowledging such thievery is wrong and shouldn't be done. He likes jazz, and some jazz folk get money from the NEA therefore the NEA is good. This is his argument. It's ludicrous. Might as well have the State do everything. Then welcome to the totalitarian hellhole in which you've brought about. This is just another instance where the State gives to itself more power over your life, labor, property, and the entire culture. Who decides what we should care about? Listen to? Gaze upon? Dan's answer -- the politician, because he is a more magnificent specimen of human capable of things you mundanes clearly cannot. STOP TAKING MY MONEY AND LABOR FOR THIS CRAP. If the cause is valuable someone will fund it. If it is not valuable, then why fund it in the first place?
 
I am a professional musician with a master's degree in music performance.

The NEA is, by and large, unnecessary. Sure it helps if you can get it (as an artist/musician anything helps) but it's not a replacement for hard work. I personally don't know anyone in my network that has gotten one. Private scholarships and grants are much easier to get, there's more of them, and they are usually awarded on a talent basis rather than by an arbitrary set of rules put forth by the government.

The Arts here don't need to be publicly funded. Most regional orchestras, opera companies, and other arts organizations survived the recession and are stronger because of it. In Europe the system is much different, socialized.
 
Dan's answer -- the politician, because he is a more magnificent specimen of human capable of things you mundanes clearly cannot. [/B]


:confused:hahahaha i never said anything about supporting the politician.....I think it's funny words are put in my mouth.

My argument is there are plenty of other things to worry about funding than the NEA...call me out...say what you want...but simply I never even used the word politician so....you can be angry at the system, politicians whatever you want, but we're having a discussion. throw things like that and you demagogue the conversation
 
LOL I even said that's my opinion I won't force it onto anyone....so let me ask...why are you so angry?
 
LOL just trying to keep up the vibes in here! ;)

the force comes with taxpayers being forced to pay for it. People who think NEA programs are junk, who hate jazz or modern art, are being forced to pay for it. It should be voluntary, there have always been endowments for things like that, voluntarily.

I like PBS but I think it should be funded by donations, all the same.
 
Back
Top