The idea of an "arts czar" does appeal to me, and I've been forwarded more than a few emails and website links over the past few weeks by friends who are eager to sign the petition. But, in the end, I think I agree with the ideas expressed by this author.

It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

I think we need arts warlords. Small local factions with the occasional border skirmishes.

Pocket Ninja: It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

I agree 100%. Well stated.

Well, the Drug Czar is there to destroy drugs, soo....

We definitely need an Arts Czar for the upcoming War on Art.

I somehow see that being a tough sell to your average, callow American.

Pocket Ninja: The idea of an "arts czar" does appeal to me, and I've been forwarded more than a few emails and website links over the past few weeks by friends who are eager to sign the petition. But, in the end, I think I agree with the ideas expressed by this author.

It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

You use your mouth perttier than a $20 who're.

All that WPA art was commie bullshiat anyways, right?

Makh: I think we need arts warlords. Small local factions with the occasional border skirmishes

I shall be known as Dada the Merciless, no landscape artist will escape my wrath. Sagas will be written about me, and crowds will gather to see them performed through interpretive dance by a naked man covered in goats blood.

It may not be such a bad idea.

If we had a Culture & Arts Czar, then culture and art could be properly "modified" (only when deemed neccessary of course) in order to make it suitable for public consumption.

Pocket Ninja: The idea of an "arts czar" does appeal to me, and I've been forwarded more than a few emails and website links over the past few weeks by friends who are eager to sign the petition.

Bah, the arts bolsheviks would totally kick his ass.

People weren't always proud of their ignorance.

In the early 1900s the average guy was much more educated from an arts perspective.

Snarfangel: Bah, the arts bolsheviks would totally kick his ass.

Only when they realize that the Arts Czar and Arts Tsar are the same person.

The idea of an "arts czar" does appeal to me

It appeals to me like lung cancer.

This being America and all, I thought the whole point was that the people define the arts and the culture, not the government.

No longer will art be subjective, you will be told what is good and what is not.

I love listening to NPR via the web or HD Radio.

It makes me sorry for the AM radio troglodytes who are stuck listening to deranged rants in all their static and white noise glory.

Ikam: interpretive dance by a naked man covered in goats blood.

fap.

Cool.

We can have more Virgin Mary Feces art.

haplo53: All that WPA art was commie bullshiat anyways, right?

If it can turn the tide against NASCAR aesthetics I am all for it.

TomD9938: pic

Illinois commies. I hate Illinois commies.

As long as it's not for the promotion of the scam of the talentless people called "Modern Art".

We need something like this. Doesn't need quite as much power as Europe, but right now the giant corporations control the arts scene and are free to do things like destroy original recordings of classic songs that are in their vaults. And the copyright law has gotten ridiculous. There are songs over 50 years old that the public has no access to because of those laws. We need the government doing a lot more to protect our cultural heritage.

12349876: We need something like this. Doesn't need quite as much power as Europe, but right now the giant corporations control the arts scene and are free to do things like destroy original recordings of classic songs that are in their vaults. And the copyright law has gotten ridiculous. There are songs over 50 years old that the public has no access to because of those laws. We need the government doing a lot more to protect our cultural heritage.


See the movie "The Cradle Will Rock"

Pocket Ninja: The idea of an "arts czar" does appeal to me, and I've been forwarded more than a few emails and website links over the past few weeks by friends who are eager to sign the petition. But, in the end, I think I agree with the ideas expressed by this author.

It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

its not the art and culture part that people hate. its the goddamn people they hate, because they're smug, self-serving, arrogant jackholes who think that by owning art and attempting to care about culture they are better than everyone else.

Pocket Ninja: It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

One can value art without believing that the support of the arts is a necessary or appropriate use of government funds.

Everybody has a right to be an artist if they so choose. Nobody has a "right" to a make a living at it. If you want to make a living as an artist, then make art that someone is willing to buy for enough money for you to live on. If you can't or won't do that, then go get a job to pay the bills and be an artist in your spare time.

Much of what passes for "art" today is pretentious indecipherable crap produced by arrogant pinheads who condescendingly sneer at the little people who "don't get it" while they persist in their insular art-world circle jerk of self-congratulation.

I'm supposed to support that with my tax dollars? I don't think so.

Know what else appeals to the NPR crowd? Hearing drug company sales pitches through a Medical Show.

Awesome job!

we DO need a war Czar, though. because War makes alot of folks alot of money.

bhcompy:
its not the art and culture part that people hate. its the goddamn people they hate, because they're smug, self-serving, arrogant jackholes who think that by owning art and attempting to care about culture they are better than everyone else.

Yes. Just like the advertisers have told you.

And scientists -- Pfft. Know-it-alls.

And programmers -- boy those guys and their stupid pocket protectors and glasses....

We don't need smart people or creative people as long as we all have cheap yellow beer sold to us by women with attractive cleavage.

This is an awful idea. It is always inevitable that the tastemakers of today will become the close-minded individuals of tomorrow. You get a commitee to arbitrarily dictate what pieces of art "quality" and over the years, they will end up discouraging innovation while approving of the same old banal trite. This is because absolutely no one can recognize every single great new idea; the market place of ideas has a much better bullshiat detector than a committee of sweater-clad NPR type.

This will just like the Salon system back in France during the 1900s, which subsided mass conformity while being completely hostile towards the novel and innovative impressionists. This theme is repeated over and over throughout history.

You give this position of art czar too little power, and it will become yet another worthless, bloated organization. (which is most likely what will happen)
You give it too much power (which is very unlikely to happen) and it will stifle creativity and change the motivations of artists to fit the needs of a

American Art has been evolving into exciting new avenues just fine for the past 250 years. Anyone who thinks our current culture is dead is too lazy to do the very minimum amount of leg work to discover the absolutely stunning diversity choices for art out there, both old and new.
It is YOUR fault that you think our culture is dead, not the culture.

Cybernetic: One can value art without believing that the support of the arts is a necessary or appropriate use of government funds.

Everybody has a right to be an artist if they so choose. Nobody has a "right" to a make a living at it. If you want to make a living as an artist, then make art that someone is willing to buy for enough money for you to live on. If you can't or won't do that, then go get a job to pay the bills and be an artist in your spare time.

Much of what passes for "art" today is pretentious indecipherable crap produced by arrogant pinheads who condescendingly sneer at the little people who "don't get it" while they persist in their insular art-world circle jerk of self-congratulation.

I'm supposed to support that with my tax dollars? I don't think so.

This
Jakevol2: If it can turn the tide against NASCAR aesthetics I am all for it.

Because you have the right to decide what the people should want?

Smackledorfer: In the early 1900s the average guy was much more educated from an arts perspective.

He also pooped in a wooden shack in the backyard.

Cybernetic: Pocket Ninja: It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

One can value art without believing that the support of the arts is a necessary or appropriate use of government funds.

Everybody has a right to be an artist if they so choose. Nobody has a "right" to a make a living at it. If you want to make a living as an artist, then make art that someone is willing to buy for enough money for you to live on. If you can't or won't do that, then go get a job to pay the bills and be an artist in your spare time.

THIS

Much of what passes for "art" today is pretentious indecipherable crap produced by arrogant pinheads who condescendingly sneer at the little people who "don't get it" while they persist in their insular art-world circle jerk of self-congratulation.

NOT THIS.

Seriously, Arts Czar? That's sick. The same people who decried how the government abused their rights over the last eight years are falling over themselves to hand over their rights to the new regime.

Along Maslow's hierarchy of needs I think the arts are one of the things we should be focusing least on at this point. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their cars, their lives...and we're talking about paintings. Cut me a farking break.

MyRandomName: No longer will art be subjective, you will be told what is good and what is not.

Which is different because...?

Jonathan Hohensee:
It is YOUR fault that you think our culture is dead, not the culture.

I submit: It is YOUR fault that I think our culture is dead.

/got nothing

Smackledorfer: People weren't always proud of their ignorance.

In the early 1900s the average guy was much more educated from an arts perspective.

Back then art was decipherable to the average person. What's changed since then is art, not the intellect of the viewers. Malevich was the beginning of the end. Also:

"Piss Christ" = art

(It received $15,000 from National Endowment for the Arts)

Autotelic abortions = art

(A critic proclaimed the artist the artistic "heir to Manet and Duchamp")

People cannot possibly be expected to support modern art if they mentally associate it with attention-whoring efforts like "Piss Christ" and the abortion art project.

Masso: As long as it's not for the promotion of the scam of the talentless people called "Modern Art".

C'mon. I'll go buy a canvas, you round up 40 guys to jerk off onto it.

We'll get a million dollar government grant for it.

atomsmoosher:
Seriously, Arts Czar? That's sick. The same people who decried how the government abused their rights over the last eight years are falling over themselves to hand over their rights to the new regime.

I bet the same people who want to see our "NASCAR aesthetics" driven out of our culture are the ones who get upset when conservatives try to censor rap lyrics, Mapplethorpe, and F-bombs on TV.

I guess we all have the need to have control over what exactly people see, it's just a question over what exactly is being controlled. Art would be a lot more fun if people didn't treat the fact that people enjoy stuff they hate as being an aberration from civility and justice.

Do we really need another "czar" position? Have anything with the word "czar" in it ended up being a good thing?

Lenny_da_Hog: bhcompy:
its not the art and culture part that people hate. its the goddamn people they hate, because they're smug, self-serving, arrogant jackholes who think that by owning art and attempting to care about culture they are better than everyone else.

Yes. Just like the advertisers have told you.

And scientists -- Pfft. Know-it-alls.

And programmers -- boy those guys and their stupid pocket protectors and glasses....

We don't need smart people or creative people as long as we all have cheap yellow beer sold to us by women with attractive cleavage.

And that's what I said right? No. Reading comprehension please.

Do you know what the opposite of intellectual is?

Stupid.

Cybernetic: Everybody has a right to be an artist if they so choose. Nobody has a "right" to a make a living at it.

The problem is, this is not about rights. It's about what makes the country healthier and saner.

You approach this through the entirely wrong lens.

citizen905: Do you know what the opposite of intellectual is?

Stupid.

If you think that you're neither intelligent nor intellectual.

Why the hell do we have all these Czars to begin with? What the hell do they do?

Lenny_da_Hog: bhcompy:
its not the art and culture part that people hate. its the goddamn people they hate, because they're smug, self-serving, arrogant jackholes who think that by owning art and attempting to care about culture they are better than everyone else.

Yes. Just like the advertisers have told you.

And scientists -- Pfft. Know-it-alls.

And programmers -- boy those guys and their stupid pocket protectors and glasses....

We don't need smart people or creative people as long as we all have cheap yellow beer sold to us by women with attractive cleavage.

Not approving of pathetic bullshiat getting passed off as art by the circular logic of "you say my shiat is great, I'll say yours is" =/= disapproval of science.

Genius strives for clarity. Mediocrity obfuscates.

I am quite capable of being well read, learned, and still think finger painting with menstrual fluid is a sad and obvious attempt to cover up for a complete lack of actual talent or creativity.

Pocket Ninja: It would be nice, though, to get to a place in this country where the idea of valuing art and culture wasn't so commonly used as a slight against people like "the NPR crowd." Anti-intellectualism has become a cottage industry for political pandering, and that's a tragic and hard-to-reverse thing.

Be as intellectual, artistic, or culturally aware as you want, as long as you're not trying to fund it out of my wallet.

bhcompy: Lenny_da_Hog: bhcompy:
its not the art and culture part that people hate. its the goddamn people they hate, because they're smug, self-serving, arrogant jackholes who think that by owning art and attempting to care about culture they are better than everyone else.

Yes. Just like the advertisers have told you.

And scientists -- Pfft. Know-it-alls.

And programmers -- boy those guys and their stupid pocket protectors and glasses....

We don't need smart people or creative people as long as we all have cheap yellow beer sold to us by women with attractive cleavage.

And that's what I said right? No. Reading comprehension please.

The problem is, you are not the farking authority here. What you said was pure opinion. When I hear people like Al Gore speak or commentators from NPR, I hear something completely different than you. I hear someone that makes rationalizations and arguments that can be from an entirely different level than what people are used to in daily life. All society formerly aspired to be like these people, speak like these people. They 'sound' smug to you because they have confidence unrepresented in your pop culture icons that comes from study, they are 'self-serving' in that they are like everyone else in the world, they are arrogant sometimes because they are reacting to close-minded rhetoric and pure fear of their "science and numbers mumbo-jumbo makin' me feel stoopid." What you are saying is not only relevant as something to be mocked, but it is the essence of what thinking people find wrong with the headline... It is anti-intellectual.

When we want some back-woods survivalists like Fark Independents making decisions on art funding, we'll ask. Till then, the people with the taste for these things with find their way to carve their tiny goddamn sliver of the budget to support the arts. You could fund the NEA for a thousand years for the price of one stealth bomber you r-tards.

SurahAhriman: I am quite capable of being well read, learned, and still think finger painting with menstrual fluid is a sad and obvious attempt to cover up for a complete lack of actual talent or creativity.

Except that most people who are well read and learned do not biatch about federal arts funding, or bring up one bad example out of the thousands of great things that the money is used for.

MrGumboPants: Cybernetic: Everybody has a right to be an artist if they so choose. Nobody has a "right" to a make a living at it.

The problem is, this is not about rights. It's about what makes the country healthier and saner.

You approach this through the entirely wrong lens.

The protection of rights is the purpose of government. The last 200 years of American History is the tale of our government going well past that authority, and the correlative tale of acceptance of this idea by the America public.

Also, be a sweetheart, and define "healthier and saner". I guarantee you any group of 10 people will have at least 5 opinions on this.