One which I find disturbing is that only 19% of Americans thought that art served a purpose other than being "nice to look at." Even in highly-educated Iceland and cultured Italy, the result was pretty much the same. It was even more pronounced in the Netherlands, a country noted for both its high level of education and rich cultural history. 91% of Dutch people thought art should just be pretty.
The vast majority of people in almost every country were insisted that any people be clothed. Icelanders and Italians said it depended on the context and the French prefered that the subjects be partialy clothed.
America's favorite artist is Normon Rockwell, with Jackson Pollack being the least favorite.
What was truely disturbing is that fully 57% favor less government spending in the arts, compared to only 16% of Germans or 13% of Icelanders. Of course, that would make sense as 48% of Americans visit an art museum once a year or less.
[[Edited for usage.]]
[ February 04, 2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: PrometheusBound ]
Posted by JumboWumbo (Member # 10047) on :
I was at the getty on tuesday, and I had a wonderful time.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Yeah, well I expect that Hatrack has a much higher rate of gallery and museum attendence than the U.S. in general.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I see nothing disturbing about people wanting to spend less tax money on art. Art that cannot stand by itself, without people being forced to pay for it, does not deserve the name.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:One which I find disturbing is that only 19% of Americans thought that art served a purpose other than being "nice to look at."
A note: 19% of Americans felt that paintings should ideally serve a purpose beyond decoration, whereas the majority said it didn't have to.
That's not quite equivalent to the statement that only 19% of Americans feel art actually serves some higher purpose, while the other 75% cited in the poll do not.
--j_k
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Very, very few artists have "stood by themselves." Leonardo and Michaelangelo had their patrons, who were esentialy government patrons, Van Gogh was entirely dependent on his brother and others have been dependent on friends.
Much of the greatest art has been government funded. Peracles and Augustus, the Medici and the Popes all payed for art from the public coffers.
There would be no art today if it were required that art be profitable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: One which I find disturbing is that only 19% of Americans thought that art served a purpose other than being "nice to look at." Even in highly-educated Iceland and cultured Italy, the result was pretty much the same. It was even more pronounced in the Netherlands, a country noted for both its high level of education and rich cultural history. 91% of Dutch people thought art should just be pretty. ... What was truely disturbing is that fully 57% favor less government spending in the arts, compared to only 16% of Germans or 13% of Icelanders. Of course, that would make sense as 48% of Americans visit an art museum once a year or less. [[Edited for usage.]]
To be fair, you're putting a bit of spin on the results.
1) According to this 57% do not in fact favour *less* government spending. All you get from the results is that 57% oppose spending *more* money on the arts.
That seems to be entirely reasonable considering that many of them may want the *same* level of funding. Plus, when compared to other programs such as Medicare, Social Security, art in specific may not be the highest priority.
2) Covered by JTK who posted while I was typing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why are all the most wanted paintings virtual copies of each other? I feel like I'm looking at variations on a theme.
The US painting looks like something from the Hudson River School.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"Why are all the most wanted paintings virtual copies of each other?"
They arn't all that way. But those that are just go to show how much we think alike.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Now that you mention it, the content of the paintings seems to be important. The USA one has a founding-father-esque figure in it; Denmark's has a Danish flag. China has painting within the larger image, presumably a portrait of Mao.
--j_k
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Very, very few artists have "stood by themselves." Leonardo and Michaelangelo had their patrons, who were esentialy government patrons, Van Gogh was entirely dependent on his brother and others have been dependent on friends.
Ah, but a patron actually consumes the art he pays for, and can choose to kick the artist out. Grants from tax money are something else entirely. And as for there being no art if it were required to be profitable, that's ridiculous. How many bazillion dollars are there in the music industry? I grant you that there probably would not be many paintings of the splash-canvas-with-paint variety, which is another point in favour of not subsidising artists.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Mucus and JT are right. In one instance I was imprecise in phrasing, in the other I misread a question (they were slightly different from one country to another.) I'm sorry.
Mucus is not entirely right, IMHO, becouse levels of public spending on art is this country are so dismaly low that keeping them the same does not seem at all reasonable to me, even if it isn't the highest priority.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"How many bazillion dollars are there in the music industry?"
Is all music art? Not all pictures are art, surely? And even if all music is art, then the money in the industry is not spread out evenly. Even the most popular classical performers, such as Yo-Yo Ma and Placido Domingo make but a tiny fraction of what pop artists do. And, for a while at least, Michael Jackson was richer than Paul McCartney. I hope you are not seriously suggesting that the former is the better artist.
"Ah, but a patron actually consumes the art he pays for" almost all (all?) public funding for art goes to works which will be on public display. Admision to many museums, such as the Met, is also free (although the Met strongly, strongly, encourages you to donate.) If it is not free, then it is generaly quite cheap, often under $10 is smaller cities and seldom more than $20. Art has not been so accesible since the Roman Empire fell.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:And even if all music is art, then the money in the industry is not spread out evenly.
? Uneven, in relation to what criteria? If we're assuming that all music is art, then the profit it produces is going to be related to how much of it is consumed, and the methods used to distribute it.
One could argue that music is where "sound" and "art" overlap and paintings are where "pictures" and "art" overlap. So yes, all music can be art, but no, not all pictures are art, but that's simply because they are two different types of classes altogether.
--j_k
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Um, they are all almost the same.
Mountain, berg, etc. on the left, with water in background, and animal bottom right, and people middle center.
They vary, but are quite similar.
I find it hard to believe that these were all the most wanted paintings.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Grants (and patrons) give artists time and supplies to create their own vision instead of creating more of what will definitely work, more of what's already out there.
I don't see any problem with people creating what people want, but I'm glad that there's money out there helping people to experiment, and making more "traditional" art financially available to those of us who can't afford to be patrons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They even have that same tree on the right, and the same mountain range that drops into a V-shape on the hoizon.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
They're supposed to be the same painting , but done in such away to make them appeal to their respective country. Obviously, for example, Denmark wants paintings to be patriotic.
It's just one of these surveys.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was rather baffled by the semi-arbitrary addition of George Washington to the American one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You sure that's GW?
From the look of the painting, it was done early 19th century I'd bet. Which would make that a fairly standard look for the time.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The site wasn't very user-friendly. I couldn't find the paintings the people were invited to choose between.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: From the look of the painting, it was done early 19th century I'd bet.
I couldn't find any description of methodology, but it looked to me like a modern attempt to reproduce a 19th-century landscape style, with George Washington clumsily inserted to pander to American "tastes."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: The site wasn't very user-friendly. I couldn't find the paintings the people were invited to choose between.
From the statement of the United States polling method:
quote:The survey was conducted by Marttila & Kiley, Inc. of Boston, between December 10 and December 21, 1993. 1001 adult Americas residing in the 48 contiguous states were interviewed by telephone by trained professionals. The typical interview took 24 minutes to complete. Respondents were selected from all American households using a random probability sampling prcedure which included unlisted phone numbers. The sample was stratified according to state. Gender quotas were observed, so the final sample is 53 percent female and 47 percent male.
They weren't given options, they were asked poll questions and from that the pollsters attempted to extapolate a painting that would be viewed most favorably by the populace. It's all incredibly hokey, although marginally amusing.
As for federally funded art I tend to not see it as a big issue. Just because people don't want to spend more federal tax money on art doesn't mean they don't appreciate it. Perhaps they believe it falls outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. Personally, I would much prefer endowments to be handled on a local level with local funds. Federalization (IMO) tends to work in favor of non-regional, urban artists at the expense of smaller, but more locally indicative, artists. Furthermore, government-funded art in the past (again, IMO) has largely consisted of ego-projects for powerful monarchs (see popes and Medicis) rather than as an attempt to satisfy a public need. The last thing the federal budget needs is more ego projects.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I couldn't find the paintings the people were invited to choose between."
Near as I can tell, a couple of very untalented "artist"s slapped together the paintings based on the country-by-country results after the surveys had already been completed. Or could be that they have some talent, and they deliberately created garbage to display their contempt for the tastes expressed by the general public.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
quote: I was rather baffled by the semi-arbitrary addition of George Washington to the American one.
I don't think they could resist. They also did a painting of Stalin and ET Their justification is that 50% of Americans wanted a famous person in the paintings.
quote:Near as I can tell, a couple of very untalented "artist"s slapped together the paintings based on the country-by-country results after the surveys had already been completed.
Both artists, Vitaly Komar and Aleksandr Melamid, have great technical mastery, but have choosen to work rather unconventionaly. Some of their work is certainly satirical as in their painting making fun of Soviet art.
Their history is rather interesting actualy, they started out as dissident artists in the Soviet Union before immigrating to the United States.
I am bit surprised by how negative much of the reaction has been. I thought the surveys were interesting and the paintings, at worst, were mildly interesting and at best rather witty.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Is all music art? Not all pictures are art, surely?
"Works intended to have an effect on the viewer/listener" - yep, art. Sorry, I have no patience for snobbishness on the subject. You are certainly at liberty to argue that not all music is good art, but that's entirely separate.
quote:And even if all music is art, then the money in the industry is not spread out evenly. Even the most popular classical performers, such as Yo-Yo Ma and Placido Domingo make but a tiny fraction of what pop artists do.
Yes, well? Nevertheless, people do in fact dream of making music, both of the popular and classical kinds. Nobody is entitled to extra money just because you think their music is purer than the popular kind; or if they are, you can pay. Nobody else should be forced to.
quote:And, for a while at least, Michael Jackson was richer than Paul McCartney. I hope you are not seriously suggesting that the former is the better artist.
It's true that I personally prefer McCartney, but that is not relevant to the question of which of them should be supported by tax money. To which the answer is "neither one".
quote:Almost all (all?) public funding for art goes to works which will be on public display. Admision to many museums, such as the Met, is also free (although the Met strongly, strongly, encourages you to donate.) If it is not free, then it is generaly quite cheap, often under $10 is smaller cities and seldom more than $20. Art has not been so accesible since the Roman Empire fell.
Not relevant. Not everybody cares for pictures, even if viewing them is free; in such a case, they should not be forced to pay to allow others to indulge their taste. You wouldn't subsidise Superbowl tickets for football enthusiasts, surely; why should the football people have to subsidise your taste in entertainment?
quote:Grants (and patrons) give artists time and supplies to create their own vision instead of creating more of what will definitely work, more of what's already out there.
Splendid. You can be a patron, then. But I don't see why I should be forced to; after all, I'm already paying for the kind of art I like, mainly writing.
quote:I don't see any problem with people creating what people want, but I'm glad that there's money out there helping people to experiment, and making more "traditional" art financially available to those of us who can't afford to be patrons.
I'm so glad the money I earned was put to a use you approve of.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Actualy, football teams receive a lot of government money, probably more than artists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough; please take it that I also disapprove of this practice.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:I'm so glad the money I earned was put to a use you approve of.
Me too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
KoM-
The line you're drawing for art apparently (to me, at least) would encompass a lot of other government subsidized activities.
Are you favor public education? How about public health care? Roads and public works? The same arguments you make against using tax money to subsidize art could effectively be applied to any of these.
Personally I see nothing wrong (and many things right) with the government using tax money to fund artists. As I said earlier, though, I would prefer that such projects be done on the local level, giving the power (and responsibility) to a diverse set of communities rather than a monolithic central committee. I think the funds would be handled more responsibly and that the artists thus subsidized would create more important art.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Are you [in favour of] favor public education? How about public health care? Roads and public works? The same arguments you make against using tax money to subsidize art could effectively be applied to any of these.
I will have to agree that this is a continuum. Lisa, for example, would apply my argument to all the things you mention with the possible exception of roads (I'm not sure of her take on that), and there exist radical libertarians who object to using tax money on police and defense. (Not very many, perhaps, but some.) Still, most people do agree that there are some things for which taxation is a necessary evil; the question is then, what things are sufficiently good that you are willing to put up with the evil?
Now, for the three categories you mention, I favour all of them. Also basic (as opposed to applied) research, although I have to admit that sooner or later the public is going to catch on to how I've been scamming them and stop supporting me unless I do some real work. What these things have in common, though, is that none of them is a matter of taste. Everybody (ok, minus epsilon) benefits from public schooling, both from living in an economy of skilled labourers and from living in a democracy of educated voters. (Both things relative to the horror we would have without public education.) Everybody, minus epsilon, is going to be sick at some point, and glad of public health care. Everybody, minus epsilon, benefits from personal mobility. But when it comes to fine art, everybody minus ninety-five percent is the beneficiary. Your average class hierarchy does better!
I don't think a taste for paintings is any more worthy or useful than a taste for role-playing games, and don't see why gamers should have to subsidise art-lovers. But we all benefit from roads whether we personally use them or not; if not for the freeways, food would be three times the price it is now. So I do think the occasional curmudgeon who swears that he would rather live with that than be forced to give over a single cent of his hard-earned money can reasonably be forced to subsidise the rest of the population. There may be a certain amount of inconsistency in this position, as Lisa would no doubt point out; unlike her, I'm prepared to live with a bit of moral inconsistency to get results I consider reasonable, and I'm prepared to back up my interpretation of 'reasonable' with force, that is, government. (So is she, in that she apparently considers courts and police to enforce contracts to be 'reasonable', which is not a priori obvious; she just doesn't like to admit it.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but done in such away to make them appeal to their respective country. Obviously, for example, Denmark wants paintings to be patriotic.