Andrew Stiller wrote:
[snip of old quoted material]
> I was not addressing the main thread, but simply the narrow issue of how
> important the arts are to society. However, I find I can't resist
> swinging at such an easy pitch:
>
> No, he didn't have government support. He didn't have *any* support. He
> wrote these lines, and all his other poetry, in what spare time he could
> find from his work as a doctor. And we all know how much spare time
> doctors have.
>
> Anybody think the nation's artistic patrimony benefits from this kind of
> arrangement? Anybody think it's not the common lot of poets in our
> society? Since market forces have proven inadequate to the problem in
> the past, has anybody got a way to fix it that does *not* involve
> government intervention?
>
It is always interesting to ponder "what-if" situations, such as "what
if Williams hadn't needed to be a doctor to earn a living" but I tend to
think the great art which has been produced is in response to the
artist's situation in life, what they experience, what they witness, the
emotions they feel as they experience their particular worlds.
Perhaps Dr. Williams' poetry was written in stolen moments in his busy
doctor's life, but that may also be why it is so powerful.
I am not sure that giving creative minds a free ride so that they may
create is such a great thing -- it removes them from having to interact
with the world in any meaningful way and (in my opinion) may rob them of
the very stimulus which provides great art.
I don't happen to think the artistic world is broken in any manner -- I
feel great art is happening all around us without government support.
That overpaid symphony orchestras can't exist without government grants
speaks as much to personal greed as to an artist's need to create
without worrying about income. When a conductor can earn millions of
dollars from conducting only half of his/her orchestra's concerts, while
also earning millions of dollars in guest conducting appearances, there
is absolutely no need for government support of that organization. When
a first-year member of a symphony orchestra supported by government
grants can earn an annual salary 5 or 6 times what a first-year member
of the armed forces who is willing to die for us in defense our country
earns, there IS something sick and extremely broken about the system.
But it isn't because some painter has to flip burgers to pay the rent.
And yes, I am even more furious about government's support of industry
through farming subsidies which help agribusiness far more than the
individual farmer, and corporate welfare and all sorts of government
intervention into the marketplace, with the exception of those
governmental laws which prevent monopolies and thus keep the marketplace
open. I am against giving tax breaks and building municipal stadiums
for professional millionaire athletes and billionaire team owners.
But, hey, I gotta laugh, because the government certainly doesn't give a
tinker's d____ what I think about things.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
