Advertisements

Government Funding the Arts

There was this screeching, shrieking, wailing sound coming from Hollywood and the left recently. No, I’m not talking about Ashley Judd squealing about her noxious, much abused and hammered twat in DC a couple of days ago, or Madonna fantasizing about blowing up the White House (she may have misspoken and meant “blowing,” since there’s not much left for her to do as a dried up whore, who contributed to Queen von Pantsuit’s defeat last November by threatening blowjobs for votes). I’m talking about the collective howl of outrageary at the announcement that 45 is considering ending funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which sucked $148 million from the federal budget last year. While that’s a relatively small slice of the federal funding pie, it’s got to start somewhere.

And yes, I’m thrilled that this is finally a possibility!

The Arts won’t die without federal government support. The Arts thrived before the NEA came into existence in 1965, and they will continue to thrive after funding ends.

dickYou know what won’t thrive? Shitty art. Because if you suck at your art so much that you need the feds to steal money from the taxpayers to prop you up, and essentially FORCE those who wouldn’t normally buy your brain droppings to pay for your assery so you can continue “creating” shit like this, which looks like a dick exploded after a night of banging Ashley Judd’s infected cunt, then maybe you should find another way to make a living.

I should not be obligated to fund your hobby – and I don’t give a fetid fuck whether a dime, or a penny, or even a percentage of the penny I earned goes to fund your entertainment. That penny doesn’t belong to you. Go fellate a rabid platypus; you don’t need my earnings to fuel your creative juices. Go to work, like everyone else, and make something people want to pay for.

Art, cinema, music, theater… all those things will exist without taxpayer funding. Even non-profit theater companies make… uh… profits. The Met made some pretty good scratch last year, despite falling ticket sales. Why? Because they’re good, and apparently people want to attend the operas and other events there and are willing to pay for them.

As my friend Larry Correia said recently in a post that inspired this rant…

If you get good enough that your art actually moves people, then you’ll be able to sell it. If you get to where people actually really like it, you can even make a living at it (like me).

Until then, nobody owes you shit. Tax payers don’t owe you shit. I don’t owe you shit. It only took ten cents from my taxes? So what? That’s ten cents that could have went for something better than propping up your no-talent ass.

Here’s the thing. If the government funds something, it also has the right to control it. On a more micro level, if I give you money, I expect you to create what I want/find appealing, or I will withdraw my funding.

But if the government funds your art, and I find your used tampon glued to a black canvas, or that booger you picked and framed disgusting, I don’t have the right to withdraw funding from your bumbling ass, because I have no say in how the government spends my money.

At the same time, if some politicians decide you should be painting nothing but nativity scenes, they have the right to direct you to do that, because it’s public money you’re using to fund your creations. So just you wait when those eeeevil Christian theocrats take over!

turdIs that what you want? I doubt it. Withdrawing public funding from the arts protects it from unreasonable government government demands.

And frankly it protects my hard-earned dollars from being used to fund heinous fuckery like this turd. If I want to see shit, I’ll gaze inside my toilet bowl before flushing. I certainly don’t need to be paying for an artist’s rendition of last night’s digested pork chop and taters.

Let’s get it straight, Cupcake. You. Don’t. Have. The. Right. To. My. Earnings.

You have the right to excrete whatever hideous, boring, uninspired, churlish, plebeian pablum you want, from any orifice that strikes you. My only obligation should be that of non-interference. If the ass drippings you preserved on a canvas gain an audience who likes and appreciates such leavings, you will make money, because they will be willing to pay for it.

Art is a skill. Work to develop it. Work to improve it. Work to provide your audience with music, literature, paintings, cinema, and theater that touches them, makes them think, entertains them, and stimulates their senses.

Art is a product. Work to develop a product your customers will truly want, admire, appreciate, and be willing to shell out money for, and you won’t need government funding.

So don’t stick out your grubby paw and demand the rest of us fund your dream of becoming an “artist.” If you need that, chances are you suck anyway.

Advertisements

32 responses

  1. Don’t hold back now – let us know how you REALLY feel.

    (And yep, much so-called ‘public art’ is pretty lamentable. There is a particular installation along the Museum Reach of the San Antonio Riverwalk – a number of huge square metal rectangles filled with metal mesh that I call “AC Filters of the Gods.” OTO – the gigantic fiberglass fish handing from the underside of the IH 35 overpass are kind of cool, and really neat when they are lit up at night.)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I agree – a lot of ‘public art’ is crap -literally n some cases! *shudder!*

      On the other hand, I really liked those cool fountains – the kind that look like a single ‘worm’ of water diving in and out of spouts and through pipes.

      Larry’s point about getting good enough to get paid reminded me of this fellow who lives near my in-laws my hubby told me about. Guy apparently started to do wood carving in his spare time -a hobbyist – maybe from cut down dead wood, of which there is plenty. As the years passed he got better and better, the carvings becoming more detailed and complex, judging from the pieces he would display in his front yard. I would not be surprised if he gets commissions and probably sells some of his smaller works online.

      Now, personally, I completely understand if there’s local initiatives to highlight and display the talent of local artists – draws in tourism, instills pride in the local folk, etc; but this is different I think, from applying for a grant from the government to fund your art supplies.

      Like

      1. When my daughter finished Basic at Parris Island, I went to see her graduate, and the next day we spent walking around historic Savannah, GA. In one of the parks there, they had some wonderful installations by local artists. One of them was sort of an neoclassical round folly with a dome — sort of woven out of brush and reeds – really quite striking. I like public art like that. Or in Albuquerquen NM, one of the traffic circles has a classic 50s sedan on a tall plinth – and it’s all neatly tiled with blue and aqua- glazed tiles. I think the locals call it “Chebbie on a Stick” – but it’s fun, eye-catching, quirky – and did mean a lot of work for the artist.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I just moved to San Antonio (finally after longing to for 35 years). Where are the fish? What part of 35? I’ve seen the AC filters and they’re stupid. Not crazy about that big red thing either, but it’s a landmark now. I still think the River Walk at night is the most beautiful man-made thing ever. I want my ashes scatter there when I die 😀

      Like

      1. The fish are hanging from the section of 35 overpass that goes over the Riverwalk, north of downtown, and between that stretch between the Pearl and the SA Museum of Art. They’re lovely at night, or so I am told. Take the river taxi all the way north to the Pearl – you’ll see them.

        Like

  2. But who will make the above-shared Turd-zillas if we don’t fund it? 🙂

    Great rant. Miss your sassy verbal blitzkriegs.

    Like

  3. You think that’s bad, the LA county museum of art spent 10 MILLION on a 340 ton rock. No they didn’t sculpt it in to anything or use any talent. They just bought a big rock. Michaelangelo is spinning in his grave.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Ever heard of a gōngshí?

      Like

      1. At least gongshi has historically significance to it and an artistic look to it. The LA county museum rock is just a rock.

        Like

    2. That’s a bit much even for the geology department who at least would have a vested interest in ‘just a rock’. I doubt it’s one of the Buick sized garnet schist or gneisses either. (Golfball sized crystals, usually not gem quality. But… boulder of fascinating rock the size of a large car and garnet crystals the size of GOLF BALLS… Rock nuts I could see going for that.) I am failing to find anything about the geology of said rock ‘art’ other than they claim it is a ‘granite’. The pictures make me wonder about who told them that but they’re all from too far away for me to get a good look at the crystal size. Might be a really pale rhyolite instead. /geologist babble.

      Like

  4. YEP…YEP

    YEP..
    YEP……YEP…

    Yep…yepyepyep..
    YEPYEPYEP !!!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. That was outfreakinstanding!
    There’s some bent steel sewer pipe in downtown Cleveland that is supposed to be “art”. How in the hell is welding some bent pieces of steel sewer pipe together art?

    Like

    1. Being a frequent flyer…..next time you’re stuck in an airport….look up. There’s always some kind of crap hanging from the high ceilings…….I always thought I could get a (VERY) high paying job putting together crap to hang from airport ceilings…..

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I will admit that I do like some of that stuff. Like this, for instance. So cool!

        ceiling

        But then, there’s this, and I’m all WTF?

        corn

        Like

        1. Where is the giant piece of corn?

          Like

        2. No idea. Iowa, maybe? LOL

          Liked by 1 person

  6. “…which looks like a dick exploded after a night of banging Ashley Judd’s infected cunt..”

    LOL.

    This argument reminds me of that old scene from Beetlejuice

    Like

  7. Did some research when this hit the news. The only current ‘individual’ grants available through NEA are for Authors. Who have been published in an accredited journal or somewhere that requires an editor to have looked over your work. All the other grants go to cities, states, and 501c3 organizations.

    The writing grants allow the publishing industry to avoid having to pay advances. And independent authors, who arguably could use the help most, are left out in the cold.

    Like

    1. So the city or state give that $$$ to some yahoooooo to put railroad tracks stuck into the ground like a widely spaced fence – which I saw today- and THATS art????
      If it’s not, and it’s the beginning of The Fence…..Trump needs to put them a little closer together…..

      Like

  8. Totally agree. It’s time to divest that pork project of stolen money from the American people. Want to fund “Piss Christ?” Fine. Use your shekels, not mine.

    #libtards…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree completely and I’m an atheist.

      Like

  9. “Go fellate a rabid platypus”
    It is now my goal in life to work that into a conversation (giggles maniacally!)
    Couldn’t agree more with this article 😂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If you do, you need to let me know!

      Like

  10. Whatever happened to “suffering for your art”? Although, in fairness, if you live-modeled that exploded dick from your own cock, that would undoubtedly qualify.

    Like

  11. Some public art was part of the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression. It was funded by the federal government, the purpose being to put people back to work. http://www.wpamurals.com/
    If you click on that link, you can find murals that were done for the WPA, who the artist was, and where they are located. That certainly did some good in the world and it is still around today, as a part of the history of this country. Ir had relevance then, and still does today. The program ended before World War II because the Depression was winding down.
    That program served two purposes: it supported the arts and put people to work. But there is a massive difference between that kind of public art, and the unmitigated crap foisted on the viewing public by people who get money from the NEA, and I agree that it is time to stop this preposterous mess that is considered to be public art. If you want a rock, I can dig one up for you in my front yard. It’s not the same thing as a fund raiser like those that Chicago and other towns do, asking artists to do a project their way with a specific object such as a fiberglass horse, and auctioning those pieces off when the project comes to an end. Those are fund raisers, and I’ve yet to see anything grossly vulgar come out of them.
    It may be that the description of the project and the finished product, such as a giant turd, don’t match in the proposal for the funding, and that’s the reason it’s granted, but it is time to stop it and put the money to use on more practical things like fixing streets that are caving in and bridges that are on the verge of collapsing into oncoming traffic.

    Like

    1. Not only that, but it was a temporary measure that went away in 1944 (IIRC). It wasn’t a permanent program to prop up what fedgov believes to be art.

      Like

  12. Full disclosure, I once got a very small grant from the NEA. I used to be very active in an amateur theater group. We were going to a one act play contest. I was the stage manager for this particular production but I didn’t know going in that we were working on it for the contest which required traveling money that I just did not have. I was just going to pull out and let someone else take over. But they applied for an NEA grant for me for my travel fees, lodging, and food. Not a huge grant but it was still there and allowed me to participate in something I’d always been a big part of.

    Those tiny grants like that (and I had to prove I was poor at the time and I was *very* poor) I don’t mind so much. It allows the Average Citizen ™ to participate in the Arts. But what the NEA has turned into is obscene. I’d rather see the smaller grants just be done away with than for us to spend millions of dollars a year creating crap.

    Like

  13. If this is what government-funded art looks like, I wonder what government-funded healthcare would look like? A fucking graveyard?

    The exploding penis gag was one of your best, Nicki. Hats off to you.

    Like

    1. That’s an easy one. Government funded health care looks like the VA. (And people wonder why I don’t want government funded health care…)

      Liked by 1 person

  14. but don’t you know? No art of any kind existed prior to 1965? Hemingway, Faulkner, Wallace Stevens, Kerouac & the Beats, Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, T. S. Eliot, Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe (lot of good he reaped thanks to the NEA, eh?), Jackie Gleason, Benny Goodman, Henry Miller, the Ink Spots…..only deplorable philistines dare deny these persons and their works did not exist prior to the NEA’s great coming in 1965.

    Like

  15. […] And don’t even get me started on government funding for the arts! […]

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: