tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post8627844580034040902..comments2023-12-20T17:20:22.032-05:00Comments on 99 Seats: Necessary99http://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-64621427120851580502009-09-14T13:32:18.903-04:002009-09-14T13:32:18.903-04:00My comment was getting too long, so I posted it in...My comment was getting too long, so I posted it instead. <br /><br />http://thetheatron.blogspot.com/2009/09/necessary-response.html<br /><br />Good stuff, all.Philuciferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16677432259206550338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-58234234113493311172009-09-14T12:26:47.066-04:002009-09-14T12:26:47.066-04:00"we too often argue that artists are essentia..."we too often argue that <i>artists</i> are essential, not <i>art</i>."<br /><br />I think that's where the problem lies. Art is a necessary thing for humanity. It has been for tens of thousands of years. There is not a single major event in the growth of civilization that I know of that was not either lead or accompanied by works of art.<br /><br />Hell, if you go back as far back as the Venus de Willendorf it was so important that it must have been one of the few things they carried with them that didn't directly lead to survival.<br /><br />Most funding arguments aren't really about art or access to art. It's about getting some cash for artists and lots of it for large institutions. And that's why they fall flat.<br /><br />Most artists and arts orgs do a crap job of showing why they're necessary.Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-5042656383795526542009-09-14T11:09:19.978-04:002009-09-14T11:09:19.978-04:00To argue against my own position, here’s a startin...To argue against my own position, here’s a starting point for making the case for the necessity of the arts:<br /><br /><a href="http://createquity.com/2009/04/deconstructing-richard-florida.html" rel="nofollow">http://createquity.com/2009/04/deconstructing-richard-florida.html</a><br /><br />Also:<br /><br /><a href="http://createquity.com/2009/05/reconstructing-florida.html" rel="nofollow">http://createquity.com/2009/05/reconstructing-florida.html</a><br /><br />(Apparently Createquity is my new favoritist blog evar.)<br /><br />I’d heard of Richard Florida’s ideas through a friend, but they are basically new to me. Totally fascinating stuff, and I’m really interested to dig deeper. It’s certainly the most promising premise I’ve heard for why the arts could be necessary in a way worthy of governmental support.Christopher Ashworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438952063008073418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-37462130314431903032009-09-13T17:55:30.502-04:002009-09-13T17:55:30.502-04:00> And see, from where I sit, conflating "n...> And see, from where I sit, conflating "needs art" <br />> with "needs an organ donor" is kind of patronizing.<br /><br />Er, right. Which is why I have a problem with it. <br /><br />In other words, if the defense of art as "necessary" is "when our singing is cut off, we die", then that's the equivalence you're setting up. That kind of poetic overreach is the kind of thing I'm objecting to, and I think it's the kind of thing that makes conservatives hate liberals.<br /><br />As you rightly point out, there are other kinds of necessary that are worth considering when crafting government policy. But they all boil down to utilitarian arguments, and the point is that art makes a very weak utilitarian case for itself. Which gives it a weak hand when playing at the public policy table.<br /><br />And I'm saying that it's beauty and power come in large part from the fact that it's <i>not</i> utilitarian, so it's damn well worth doing, but not by the government. Or at least, not until someone makes a stronger utilitarian case for it. The strongest case I've heard so far, which I am curious about, is the idea that the crucial creative professionals of a thriving modern economy won't come to live and create in neighborhood X without the artists there too. That's intriguing to me. But overall, the utilitarian arguments don't carry a lot of <i>umpph</i>.<br /><br />Blah. I feel like I'm the bothersome dude that comes over to argue with you. I enjoy reading your blog, even though I only seem to pipe up when I have a bone to pick. Makes me feel kinda gross.Christopher Ashworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438952063008073418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-54648658823515247432009-09-13T15:47:47.002-04:002009-09-13T15:47:47.002-04:00And see, from where I sit, conflating "needs ...And see, from where I sit, conflating "needs art" with "needs an organ donor" is kind of patronizing. There are lots of things that fall distinctly short of physically life-extending that we consider worth federal subsidy or support, or part of what makes living worth living and they're not consider less than necessary. Roads, public transportation, and other infrastructure comes to mind. I mean, if physical-life-extending is the baseline, what besides food and shelter make the grade? Technically, education, beside basic rudimentary things, is "unnecessary" in that formulation. And certainly it can be done on an individual family level. No need for a school system, or certainly a secondary education system. I think you can't reduce it to that. If you're going to value education of any kind, then art has value.99https://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-16242086621864953002009-09-13T15:40:26.547-04:002009-09-13T15:40:26.547-04:00Yes, I'm talking about the physical act of dyi...Yes, I'm talking about the physical act of dying. I mean it isn't okay to equate "needs an organ donor" with "needs an artistic outlet". I can believe that art is an apex of human existence without making this patronizing conflation.Christopher Ashworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438952063008073418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-88838129622704597662009-09-13T12:28:47.855-04:002009-09-13T12:28:47.855-04:00I don't know how you reconcile your two statem...I don't know how you reconcile your two statements: art is "the point...the reason to be" and the distinction that we don't "die...when we can't sing." If art is the reason to be, rather than "not to be," what do you mean about dying? What part of the ride can't you come along for? Are you talking purely physical realities?<br /><br />And, for the record, I do believe wholeheartedly, that without the ability and capacity for self-expression, in one form or another, a person will wither and die. Or, at the very least, be reduced to an animal state, all instinct and fear, lacking what makes us human. Which would be a form of death.<br /><br />I think you're drawing a distinction without a difference.99https://www.blogger.com/profile/11955916620902994495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731242543254491491.post-35131212930657567532009-09-13T12:02:51.031-04:002009-09-13T12:02:51.031-04:00> [Art] may very well be the thing that actual...> [Art] may very well be the thing that actually makes us human.<br /><br />For the record, I passionately, deeply, hugely agree. Art and culture are, for my money, ultimately the point. Human life at its most human. The reason to be, rather than not to be.<br /><br />> We sing to express things beyond words. <br />> We write to communicate what we feel. <br />> And when these things are cut off, we <br />> fall apart, die, become miserable. <br /><br />This is where I can't come along for the ride. Factually speaking, this is simply incorrect. We die when we can't eat, not when we can't sing. If we can't own up to this distinction at the beginning, people have good reason to ignore our subsequent arguments about the value of art.Christopher Ashworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438952063008073418noreply@blogger.com