> >> .... Sure I need to get paid for my work, but why not from a > >> collective source instead of from individuals. Some sort of tax scheme > >> or choir fund scheme. Whatever. Art should be public, not privately > >> owned and tampered or speculated with or profited from. Maybe I'm in a > >> position to say this and act upon it. Maybe I'm lucky. How can anyone > >> get filthy rich form just one measerly lucky strike and sit back and > >> have the money flow in. That's not what art is all about. At least not > >> for me. > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> Paul Delcour > > > > > >Translation: you believe it's honorable to live off of funds forcibly > >extracted from the public at large for a product they may or may > not want, > >but immoral to make a living from individuals who freely choose > to part with > >their own honestly acquired wealth in exchange for what you have > to offer. > >To my way of thinking this is a 100% moral inversion. I don't > mean to stir > >the pot, but as lover both of music and individual liberty I > can't let this > >idea stand unchallenged. > > > >-Lee > > > Hmm. Not a big supporter of the NEA, I see. Better stay away from > Canada then, where the Canada Arts Council supports arts with even a > greater proportion of public funds per capita. Not to mention Germany > or France, both of which are heaven on earth for musicians, compared > even to Canada. > > Christopher
I find it discouraging that so many artists find it not only acceptable, but a sign of progressivity to feed from the public trough. Yes, I am against the NEA, the CAC, and all such government institutions, not because I'm a "small-minded right-winger", as Darcy so eloquently put it in his ad hominem argument, but because I believe that not only are government subsidies immoral in principle, but in the long run they are harmful to the cause of both art and artists. You can unfairly castigate the free market if you wish (the failure of Enron is a textbook demonstration of the corruption of government/business partnerships, and it was the natural operation of market processes that revealed the corruption), but why not just state the case baldly: you don't wish to make a living by others freely choosing to support you or not, according to their own judgement of the value you offer; you'd rather use the power of the state as an intermediary to spend other people's income on you. Rest assured, yours is the majority view by far, even in the U.S.: you can line up behind Enron, the agriculture industry, the steel industry, the sugar industry, etc. etc. etc. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to rationalize their subsidies in order to retain their sense of honor and self-respect. This is no way for an artist to live. Perhaps Canada and Europe don't have the same tradition of "rugged individualism" as the U.S. (getting less rugged all the time). But I submit that unless we as artists don't embrace individualism more and collectivism less, art does not have a healthy future in this world. -Lee _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
