Mr. Kingston vs. Art
There's a subplot in the recent debate about how bailout money should be spent. $50 million for the National Endowment For The Arts went in and out of the bailout package, because the Republicans were against it. It stayed in, in the end, increasing the NEA's total budget by more than 30%. Which is a win for those of us in the arts, and those of us who think that, oh, culture is worthwhile. We can tell that culture is worthwhile because if you ask someone to name six great Americans, two of them will be artists.
The Republicans who were against this money for the arts - and being against this money for the arts is like mounting a volley ball net along the peak of your roof, then throwing a dirty sheet over it, on which you have painted with your hands very big the words "I am an ignorant cretin!" - were against it because they thought it was a waste. Representative Jack Kingston, Republican, Georgia, is quoted in the New York Times article linked below as saying that putting people to work is more important.
The question that leaps to center stage in my mind is, what in a dry and windy Hell does Representative Kingston think one does with money earmarked for "the arts"? Take it out into the front yard in a wheelbarrow, pour paint thinner on it, and light it on fire? Put it in a rocket and shoot it at the fucking Moon? Shred it to confetti and use it as insulation in the homes of the decadent rich? Does Mr. Kingston think that art does not put people to work? How is it possible that Mr. Kingston does not understand that what you do with art money is you pay the staffs of museums and galleries, you pay the artists who create the art, who create the paintings, sculptures, photographs, installations, films, literature, which people will get into their cars to come and pay an admission to view or to buy, which critics will be paid to criticize, which will be created with supplies bought from businesses in the business of supplying goddamned art supplies to goddamned artists? That the people who come to museums buy lunch at the restaurant next door? How is it conceivable that someone chosen by his fellow citizens as their representative cannot grok the fact that if you create a world where artists can make a living, you create a world where art schools can pay their faculties to train the next generation of artist? In a world with any scrap of humanity, how can I, Zen Shooter, be asked to swallow the fact that this fool does not know that art is the vehicle through which we exercise our Freedom Of Speech, and that if there is anything, first and last, worth paying for, in dollars, blood, and frozen tears, it is that?
And how can this elected amoeba DARE to deny this $50 million pittance for art, which hasn't ruined or devastated anything, when hundreds of billions of dollars are being handed out to banks that pretty much fucked up EVERYTHING worse than ever before in my lifetime? We're saving the banks because we can't do without them. And that's why we're saving art, Mr. Kingston. Those of us with souls know that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/16mone.html?ref=arts
The Republicans who were against this money for the arts - and being against this money for the arts is like mounting a volley ball net along the peak of your roof, then throwing a dirty sheet over it, on which you have painted with your hands very big the words "I am an ignorant cretin!" - were against it because they thought it was a waste. Representative Jack Kingston, Republican, Georgia, is quoted in the New York Times article linked below as saying that putting people to work is more important.
The question that leaps to center stage in my mind is, what in a dry and windy Hell does Representative Kingston think one does with money earmarked for "the arts"? Take it out into the front yard in a wheelbarrow, pour paint thinner on it, and light it on fire? Put it in a rocket and shoot it at the fucking Moon? Shred it to confetti and use it as insulation in the homes of the decadent rich? Does Mr. Kingston think that art does not put people to work? How is it possible that Mr. Kingston does not understand that what you do with art money is you pay the staffs of museums and galleries, you pay the artists who create the art, who create the paintings, sculptures, photographs, installations, films, literature, which people will get into their cars to come and pay an admission to view or to buy, which critics will be paid to criticize, which will be created with supplies bought from businesses in the business of supplying goddamned art supplies to goddamned artists? That the people who come to museums buy lunch at the restaurant next door? How is it conceivable that someone chosen by his fellow citizens as their representative cannot grok the fact that if you create a world where artists can make a living, you create a world where art schools can pay their faculties to train the next generation of artist? In a world with any scrap of humanity, how can I, Zen Shooter, be asked to swallow the fact that this fool does not know that art is the vehicle through which we exercise our Freedom Of Speech, and that if there is anything, first and last, worth paying for, in dollars, blood, and frozen tears, it is that?
And how can this elected amoeba DARE to deny this $50 million pittance for art, which hasn't ruined or devastated anything, when hundreds of billions of dollars are being handed out to banks that pretty much fucked up EVERYTHING worse than ever before in my lifetime? We're saving the banks because we can't do without them. And that's why we're saving art, Mr. Kingston. Those of us with souls know that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/16mone.html?ref=arts