2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

So all good art is purchased privately and all bad art is purchased publicly? You are asking that visual art be quantified, that a distinction must be made that a painting on the wall has absolutely no discernible positive influence on anybody, and therefore should not be paid for via public funding. I would hate to see Oregon with no publicly funded artwork: Empty plazas, devoid of any interest besides a park bench and some trees; Cold, barren governmental offices with nothing but posters of cats hanging from tree branches covering the walls; transit malls lacking any visual stimulus save for the colorful grafiti covering the shelter.

Your argument is narrow minded and lacking any sense of community spirit. My tax dollars go to a myriad of government agencies and public organizations that have absolutely no personal benefit to me, yet I don't rally to stop those programs. I know that they benefit an Oregonian, somewhere, and so must be beneficial. How specifically do you know that there are more Oregonians that enjoy music more than visual arts? Should we form a State House Sub-Committee for Visual Arts Appreciation? We can include a check-box on our state income tax returns for Luxurious State Spending. The State budget includes monies for campgrounds. Camping is a luxury and is not an essential commodity. Should we abolish public funding for an activity that only small percentage of Oregonians participate in? All campgrounds should be entirely privately funded. Yes I am being sarcastic, but it is only to prove a point. To be honest, I can't tell anymore if you are merely pulling my leg and playing the devils advocate. Are you absolute in your convictions, or is this just a put on?

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

I don't quite understand this argument that spending tax dollars for public art benefits only a minority population. The very concept of public art dictates that it is made for the majority of the population to enjoy. If you would rather the money be diverted to arts education or scholarships, how does that benefit the majority? To make a broad example: If a government entity spends $60k on a public sculpture that hundreds of thousands of people will see and enjoy, they will have spent pennies for each person to enjoy the art. That same $60k would pay for 2 art students to complete a bachelor's degree in fine arts. At the end of their education they then must struggle to find private collectors and buyers of their work because there is absolutely no government funding available to purchase public artwork. Does any of this make sense? It is a specious argument to rally against public funded art while at the same time supporting government funded arts education. Or do you believe that we can spend tax dollars on art classes for grade schoolers, but once they graduate from high school they have to get "REAL" jobs?

Yes, it is a major honor to have your artwork selected for public display. It is also an extraordinary cost to fabricate and install that artwork. The art must be able to withstand our fickle climate, urban wildlife, constant touching and mischievous vandals. The artwork must be made of durable materials and installed using the most current technology and structural techniques. None of this is free. Yet you believe it could all be paid for privately? Will you please begin lobbying all of the wealthy private art collectors in Oregon to start funding all of this public art? I'm sure they would love to hear from you.

Music, dance, performing arts, and theater all enjoy public funding. Why should we then stop funding visual artists to create public artworks?

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context