- 最后登录
- 2021-7-23
- 在线时间
- 1314 小时
- 寄托币
- 5221
- 声望
- 676
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-29
- 阅读权限
- 100
- 帖子
- 181
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 4150
- UID
- 2673613
  
- 声望
- 676
- 寄托币
- 5221
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-29
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 181
|
本帖最后由 海王泪 于 2010-1-26 15:30 编辑
[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][01.19]
I'm So Bored With the NEA
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1052308
Useful Expressions
Words and Phrases
The arts’ “role in generating billions of dollars in ancillary economic activity for stores, restaurants and the travel business has been proven in bucketloads of surveys and analyses,”
Ancillary economic activity=relative business
Be proven in bucketloads of surveys and analyses=be proven in a basket of surveys and analyses
In the early 1960s, when our highest elected officials began evangelizing for the creation of state-sponsored arts programs, there was little talk of ancillary economic activity or job creation.
State-sponsored arts programs (noun.)~~Bailout=Fund
You should be equally wary of the NEA.
Be wary of =be cautious of=be watchful of=be careful of
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materials
Ideas and Examples
【The Declaration of Independence from Art】
We’re artists! Fiercely autonomous! Proudly independent!
Conclusion: Arts should be fiercely autonomous and proudly independent for free will in creation. And creation should neither fawn upon federal fund nor be limited by administrative intervention.
Key: From underachieving arts government should distinguish those competent but extinctive ones when they are not appreciated by most of the people.
【Arts bring Jobs】
The arts’ “role in generating billions of dollars in ancillary economic activity for stores, restaurants and the travel business has been proven in bucketloads of surveys and analyses,”
“Every $1 billion in spending by nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences result[ing] in almost 70,000 full time jobs.”
Do the math on that one and the results are undeniably impressive: If we applied all $787 billion of Bailout: The Sequel to the arts, we’d create approximately 55 million new jobs!
[Opponents] Some people argues that “the arts role in generating billions of dollars in ancillary economic activity for exhibitions, stores and the travel business. It has long been proven in a basket of surveys and analyses” like “every $1 billion in spending by arts organizations and their audiences results in almost 70,000 full time jobs”. But doing the math on the undeniably “impressive” statistics we found it is not so attractive: Equally $1 million for 70 full time jobs per year while each of these 70 people benefits for $14285 per year. By comparing with per capita GDP as $45594 in United States, the arts in fact play an ordinary role, instead of hart-stirring business, in generating dollars.
【Funding arts was successful and meaningful】
At a groundbreaking ceremony for the Kennedy Center in 1964, President Johnson expressed his desire to “enlarge the access of all our people to artistic creation.” A year later, he approved the legislation that created the National Endowment for the Arts. Its first grant, for $100,000, went to the American Ballet Theater, a bequest which, according to the New York Herald Tribune, saved that institution from extinction.
[Purpose]: To enlarge the access of all our people to artistic creation.(I101:"Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people.")
[Examples]: National Endowment for the Arts(NEA)’s first grant, for $100,000, went to the American Ballet Theater and thus saved that institution from extinction.
【Funding arts are now ineffective and otiose】
In such a competitive, oversupplied environment, is a lack of funding really the primary reason that not every Midwestern dance troupe is thriving? Will throwing money at highbrow entities suddenly make people less interested in American Idol and YouTube and more interested in Alvin Ailey? At this point, it might be more beneficial for the kinds of arts the NEA has traditionally funded to create a federal agency that spends $150 million a year snipping cable hook-ups, sabotaging iPods, and paying modestly talented environmental sculptors not to create. That way, we might actually have some spare attention to give new orchestral works and accordion festivals.
[Funding do not help] realize the purpose of enlarging access to highbrow arts.
1.Competitive, oversupplied art markets(Already various and excessive accesses)
2.Money on highbrow entities cannot reduce interests of common plays.
3.[reduction to absurdity]Only through cutting the throat of common plays(cable, iPods and etc.) do people have spare attention to highbrow entities(orchestral works and accordion festivals).
【Bad effects posed by federal fund】
NEA is a superfluous organization with a message that belies America’s foundational themes of pluralism and democracy. The wrangling over bailout scraps offered artists an opportunity to exit a bad alliance with an elegant, ironic flourish.
Instead, they acted like investment bankers—really meek investment bankers—and simply asked for more money.
[Paraphrase]: State-sponsored arts programs would belie America’s foundational themes of pluralism and democracy. The combats for bailout would provoke an elegant, ironic flourish of art markets. Lots of articles may be limited to governments’ taste and thus the free will in creation may be curbed.
Technique
【Vivid description to groups who want for federal support】
1)In this long season of bailouts and federally administered stimuli, with seemingly every starving investment banker pleading to Congress that capitalism is just too hard, America’s artists had a golden opportunity to pull off the greatest piece of conceptual art
Starving investment bankers plead to Congress that capitalism is just too hard.
[For unearned income, starving and underachieving artists pleads to government that the art market is depressed right now.]
2)Instead, arts advocates responded like every other underachieving opportunist peddling its troubled assets to federal sugar daddies
[Underachieving opportunists peddle their troubled assets to federal sugar daddies while daddies’ expenditure comes from our competent taxpayers. That is unfair.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Issue
85"Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts."
101"Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people."
190"As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment
Should governments provide funding for flourish arts?
Inspired by this article, I hold the view that arts should be fiercely autonomous and proudly independent. For free will in creation, it should neither fawn upon federal fund nor be limited by administrative intervention.
The article mainly tell us about a state-sponsored arts program called NEA, The National Endowment for the arts. It first was founded for the purpose of “enlarge(ing) the access of all our people to artistic creation”. And it did it! For example, the American Ballet Theater, which was almost extinct, now is enjoying full house.
However, similar bailout may be otiose today. As what the author means, today we have much more accesses to arts now. Not only those plays thrive itself but also Internet serves as one of catalysts. Audience spontaneously steps into the art market and flourish it.
Today’s state-sponsored arts program are mainly focus on highbrow entities, such as Midwestern dance troupe, orchestral works and accordion festivals. Do they deserve special consideration? Why they need federal fund? Most people do enjoy common works (popular music in iPod and etc.) instead of these highbrow ones. In this competitive, oversupplied art markets (when we do not tell level and quality apart), highbrow entities is not so popular and is probably on the way to death. In consideration of preserving them for extinction, federal sugar daddies begin its state-sponsorship or pose administrative intervention. But, is government competent in distinguishing truly valuable objects from adulterated arts pool?
Saving endangered highbrow entities is unblamable as long as the government has insight for true gold, but in the name of increasing the aesthetic level is definitely unacceptable. As what the author says:” It’s a superfluous organization with a message that belies America’s foundational themes of pluralism and democracy.” The combats for bailout would provoke an elegant, ironic flourish of art markets. Lots of articles may be limited to governments’ taste and thus the free will in creation may be curbed.
Do arts significantly create jobs?
Some people argues that “the arts role in generating billions of dollars in ancillary economic activity for exhibitions, stores and the travel business.” And “It has long been proven in a basket of surveys and analyses” like “every $1 billion in spending by arts organizations and their audiences results in almost 70,000 full time jobs”.
But doing the math on the undeniably “impressive” statistics we found it is not so attractive in fact: Equally $1 million spending changes for only 70 full time jobs and each of these 70 people in relative business benefits for only $14285 per year. By comparing with per capita GDP as $45594 in United States, the arts indeed play an ordinary role in generating dollars. To tell if the arts greatly boost ancillary economic activities, we should make a comparison with other funding programs, such as road works, education and many other influential objects. Otherwise, we cannot judge if the art, especially highbrow entity, is such a heart-stirring business.
|
|