OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
that was pretty foreseeable, really. the NEA hasn't been relavant for a while and as the article points out, granting money to people who use defacation or sexually graphic nudity as "their art" doesn't play well with most of the public.

There’s another side nobody talks about: the NEA spent a lot on performing arts that weren’t especially creative and already have wealthy benefactors. I can understand funding the arts to promote new ideas. But do we really need public money for big-budget stagings of Wagner’s Ring Cycle? Or Sondheim revivals? Beethoven’s symphonies? That’s never been music for the masses. It’s entertainment for wealthy people who are quite capable of funding this stuff on their own.
 
America's failure to support public-funded art disgusts me.

The NEA has been a target of the right-wing since at least the Reagan days (remember piss christ and the Mapplethorpe exhibit?) The right wing wants veto power over any public art it deems unworthy. I wonder where they got that idea?

book-burning.jpg
 
But do we really need public money for big-budget stagings of Wagner’s Ring Cycle? Or Sondheim revivals? Beethoven’s symphonies? That’s never been music for the masses. It’s entertainment for wealthy people who are quite capable of funding this stuff on their own.

Yes we do. Especially when those events are free to the public.
 
Still better than a rewritten drinking song.

Oh, say can you see, any bed bugs on me?
If you do, take a few, 'cause I got them off of you.
They have scars and broad stripes; they annoy me at night.
O'er the hair parts we watched, are now gallantly gleaming.
And the flashlights' red glare, the bugs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night, that no bugs were still there.
Oh, say does no scar-spangled bed bug yet wave
O'er the bed that's bed bug free, and the home that was saved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top