Hello fellow musicians,
A friend (and music colleague) of mine sent me this link. It is a request for a Cabinet level Secretary of the Arts.
While there are some who feel that there is already way too much government, perhaps it is about time for a position like this to exist. The Arts sure could use a voice at that level. And hey, the military has a representative on the Cabinet, why not the artists??
Anyway, I have signed this petition, and I pass along the link to you all, with the hopes that you will take a look at it with an open mind, and give it some serious consideration, listening to your conscience and your "better music sense".
If you should decide to sign it, think about sending the link to your musical and artistic friends. If not, then thanks for taking the time to consider this proposal.
Here's the link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/esnyc/petition.html
Heroes Don't wear capes.They wear Dog tags
Just a word of caution -- please limit any discussion to the proposal for a secretary for the arts and please avoid any partisan or political comments.
Your friendly neighborhood moderator thanks you.
Well we all shine on--like the moon and the stars and the sun.
-- John Lennon
:lol: :lol: :lol:
#4491....
I like the idea. many states have art organizations that lobby the legislature. most states have a 1% for the arts budget. although under the present economic crisis those budgets are in the crosshairs. eek.
if Frank Zappa were around I would nominate him for the national chair. he was in Washington before.
While there are some who feel that there is already way too much government, perhaps it is about time for a position like this to exist. The Arts sure could use a voice at that level. And hey, the military has a representative on the Cabinet, why not the artists??
Because that's not what governments are for.
Governments are for defense of our nation, education at the local level, and building and maintaining an infrastructure, and ensuring law and order.
(IOW, despite current popular belief, governments were never meant to be Mega-Mommys.)
Anything more is just more money out of my pocket (and yours) to build a self-perpetuating and ever increasing bureaucracy.
If there is any money left, it is spent the way THEY want to spend it.
I'd rather keep my money and support the arts the way I see fit . . .which involves GAS, CDs, and concert tickets.
It's the rock that gives the stream its music . . . and the stream that gives the rock its roll.
I'd rather keep my money and support the arts the way I see fit . . .which involves GAS, CDs, and concert tickets.
Well-said, Ken.
Dan
as a visual artist that statement kinda hurts.
I dunno, dogbite... given the way our civil service is set up, it could end up being run like FEMA.
I don't think the government has much expertise in figuring out what to support, artistically. If they were seriously going to try spending tax dollars in the arts, I'd much rather they fund additional private awards, like the MacArthur "genious" grants.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
My kids are both visual artists. They've both attended the Tennessee Governor's School for the Arts with taxpayers' support, for which I am grateful. I believe art is an important part of life. But we really don't need a Secretary of Arts, Arts Department or any such in our federal government.
"A cheerful heart is good medicine."
You would be more successful and far more effective at starting your own petition to your local School Board.
With cut-backs in most school districts, one of the first programs to suffer is the Fine Arts department.
The government already has the National Endowment for the Arts that you can make donations to.
Please don't force me to donate by encouraging the creation of another Federal Department financed with my money.
I'd like to maintain my freedom of choice to donate or not and how much.
Just a word of caution -- please limit any discussion to the proposal for a secretary for the arts and please avoid any partisan or political comments.
Your friendly neighborhood moderator thanks you.
Thank You sir.really could not find a place to post it.
as it is more of a statemement musically(or toward that end) than anything political which is how it was meant to be setup.
all that was or is being asked is a signature,nothing more although with current events can see where others are coming from who have posted on this like it said Thanks for reading or considering it anyway.No More Politics - Promise did not think it ran in those lines or circles.Was Not intended- warning heeded and understood Thank You
Heroes Don't wear capes.They wear Dog tags
Doesn't directly affect me - I'm English. Over here, we have an "Arts Council" which is a sub-division of the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport. I think I've got that particular title correct, or at least pretty close...the actual Minister of CM&S holds a senior government position and is privy to Governmental Cabinet meetings.
One of the main criticisms of the Arts Coucil, though, is that over 90% of its funding is spent on opera - jazz, for instance, has roughly the same size audience and receives less than 1% of total funding - grants etc. As for rock music - well, that's so far down on the list I don't think it'll even register.
So even if you DO get a representative for the Arts in your cabinet, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for money to go to the grass roots, or popular music level - forget rock, rap, blues, C&W, etc. - it'll go to the more "high-brow" end of the market, classical music and opera....
That's not a political observation, BTW - just my natural cynicism. The music that most people enjoy will always be at the back of the queue when it comes to hand-outs - the music that has a more limited appeal, but that can be shown off to the rest of the world as an example of high quality, highly cultured, sophisticated music will be the music that gets the big money. 'Twas always so, and 'twill ever be so.
:D :D :D
Vic
"Sometimes the beauty of music can help us all find strength to deal with all the curves life can throw us." (D. Hodge.)
as a visual artist that statement kinda hurts.
Sorry, Randy.
We support the visual arts too.
We try to buy a painting from each country we visit.
Started when we walked through the Grand Plaza in Brussels . . . and then became kind of a tradition.
And we support it at the grassroots level . . . street artists are about as grassroots as it gets.
Do I get absolution for that?
KR2
It's the rock that gives the stream its music . . . and the stream that gives the rock its roll.
One of the main criticisms of the Arts Coucil, though, is that over 90% of its funding is spent on opera - jazz, for instance, has roughly the same size audience and receives less than 1% of total funding - grants etc. As for rock music - well, that's so far down on the list I don't think it'll even register.
And that's precisely how it should be. It's not about audience sizes but about the costs of productions: a rock/rap/folk act doesnt particularly need a lot of financial support, all you need is a guitar and a mic. In our western society everyone should be able to finance that on his or her own. Opera, on the other hand, can't. Now I don't particularly listen to opera that often, and have only watched one opera in my life, but I'm proud and happy to be able to pay taxes to support the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra. Art funding allows artforms that could not survive on their own to exist and enrich the cultural climate of a country, which is a good thing whether you personally like the music or not.
With many things, individual financial support can keep an act alive: I myself, for example, have good hopes that I can earn back the expenses of recording my album by selling it to interested individuals. I don't need any government support nor do I feel there's any reason people should be forced to pay taxes to me. Larger acts, however, cannot be financed that way: there's no such thing as a min-orchestra, you can't kick out the trombones when money runs tight. You can't skip the second act of Figaro because 300 people payed for tickets instead of the expected 400. That's where the government steps in and guarantees the plurality of our culture with, when put in perspective, extremely low costs.
in the US we should keep in mind the things our tax dollars provide us.
we all saw the beautiful monuments in Washington DC during the inauguration,the WWII and Vietnam memorials to the national cemeteries, all tax funded. we have at our disposal hundreds of wonderful national parks. those displays of our heritage belong to all of us.
we pay for this. let's go enjoy them.
a good friend of mine works for the national park service. she is an arts conservator. she mends and maintains american art heritage treasures all over the states. cool.
