am I missing something here?

[TMurphy]

Then by your definition, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, The ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, and Shakespeare's Hamlet are not "pure" artistic endeavors, because the men who created them do so to earn an income.

No. I didn't say that art couldn't earn income, I said that it should not have income as its purpose of existence. It's a subtle distinction.{/quote]

And I am pointing out that these particular works of art, regarded as some of the finest in existence, were all created because they're creators were being paid to do so. Beethoven had no intention of writing the 9th symphony. He did it because he was commisioned to do so, and it was more money than he could afford to pass up. Michaelangelo painted the CIstene chapel because the Church paid him to do so. His purpose was an income.

Yes, that's also true. I was speaking in broad generalizations to make a point about art in our society. Again,

I believe you may be making an inference from an implication I never made.

[/quote]

I think you are not appreciating the full implication of the inference you *did* make.

[TMurphy]

And I am pointing out that these particular works of art, regarded as some of the finest in existence, were all created because they're creators were being paid to do so. Beethoven had no intention of writing the 9th symphony. He did it because he was commisioned to do so, and it was more money than he could afford to pass up. Michaelangelo painted the CIstene chapel because the Church paid him to do so. His purpose was an income.

Okay. Well, subtlety is lost on some.

I guess it is. I'll be more clear. In the past, ALL great works of art for produced for money. The idea that artistic endeavors should not be undertaken with money as the primary goal is a modern fantasy. Art is a business, just like anything else. Always has been.

[Rick Denney]

The problem as I see it is what constitutes "elevating the art form". Your elevation is my noise, and vice versa. So, how do you make the choice? By the will of the people? No, that's how the market works, and that isn't good enough. By the will of arts intellectuals? Who gets to be one of those, and for what purpose? How do you ensure that they do their work in good faith and not to impose some hidden agenda?

In the past, orchestras were funded by rich people as an act of noblesse oblige. Supporting the arts was one of the responsibilities of their station in life. That concept of the responsibility of wealth is pretty much gone these days, of course.

The monarch of pre-modern Europe supported orchestras as an outgrowth of noblesse oblige. As the most aristocratic of aristocrats, they had and (in enlightened countries) understood their responsibility.

As such, orchestras were concerned with pleasing aristocrats (or, in the modern day, making sure that the Symphony League ladies were kept happy).

But outside of an aristocratic oligarchy, the notion that such funding should be state-supported brings a whole host of issues. You tell me how those might be resolved in a way that doesn't force your aesthetic down my throat or cause me to pay higher taxes for something of no value to me, and I'm all ears.

Rick "not opposed to government funding, just opposed to all the mechanisms by which governments select the fundee" Denney

[Matt G]

Yes, thank you. This is exactly the point. Your example is that the BSO is not doing anything to elevate an art form, it's just playing what the people want to hear. Therefore, it makes money.

How is introducing classical music to new audiences and playing new repertoire not "elevating the art"? How is increasing it's subscription base, and therefore the audience of classical music attendees not "elevating the art"?
How is playing familiar repertoire with a new interpretation or to a higher level not "elevating the art"?

I think it's sad that you think that experiencing great art is a luxury.

It is. If you think "great art" is required to survive, then you must not be familiar with the idea of people living over 2000 years ago.

Overall, I think that this thread has done nothing more than to reinforce the notion that the OP should make a wise investment in a dictionary as his next item for reading material.

Rick does an excellent job of articulating my point. I will go further, as I assume he believes, in pointing out that the intrusion of the government on spending for the arts is the exact reason why many of the upper class no longer support the arts as they did in the past. Why should efforts be duplicated? If the government is going to take their money and redistribute it as they see fit, the upper class will keep what is theirs and no longer spend it on the arts.

Again, the government often does a lousy job of redistributing public funds, regardless of political affiliation. Why should they be the ones to decide what constitutes art and what doesn't. It is bad enough as it is right now that we have politicians deciding economic issues when they have only an elementary understanding of economic principles.

I guess the main question is:

Do you feel comfortable allowing the government to decide what is art and what isn't? If so, you might want to read up on some history books as to the societies that felt the same way.

[Uncle Buck]

The ultimate in government-subsidized musical groups are the military bands.

Does anyone want to make the argument that military bands promote forward-progress in the development of new musical styles, genres, etc., the way privately-funded groups, like those who performed new works by Mozart and Beethoven, did?

I don't.

[BopEuph]

well...

Many symphony orchestra musicians who talk to me seem to believe that medical doctors should not charge for their services, so maybe you have some sort of point here...??

Not sure if that was aimed at me, so I will make my point clear if it wasn't.

I never thought doctors shouldn't charge for their services, so I must not be one of those musicians (as a matter of fact, I ain't an orchestral musician--have yet to get my first "Pictures" gig).

Anyways, I think, as music is my career, I would like to have an income with it. As a matter of fact, I think it's highway robbery that people think a professional musician should be paid $50-$100 a gig and expect to live off of that. I remember talking to a guy at a gig who asked me what else I do, and I told him only music. It got on the subject that I had a steady church gig, and he told me he lost all respect for me, because I should be at least volunteering my services to the church, even if I was too selfish to do it elsewhere. My immediate comeback what "well, I think God wants even me to eat, too."

Right now, I live paycheck to paycheck, always hoping that phone will ring for another gig on a free night, or another student wants lessons, or another composer wants me to typeset some scores for him. Eventually, I want to have the freedom to choose my gigs, turn down the crappy ones, and still make a decent living. And, no, I do NOT want to flip burgers by day and play by night. I need to spend my days where most professional musicians do. Right now my days are spent in the woodshed on whatever instrument needs to be worked on, and nights are saved for teaching. Afternoons are where I put students if there are any for the day.

So, yeah, I WANT to make money from my craft. I spent almost 20 years so far working my butt off, and I hope to get another 20 years of financial support from my chops. I want music to give me food and a place to sleep.

Nick

[Matt G]

I am going to assume that you're not any more familiar with people living over 2000 years ago than I am.

I am just waiting to hear how being exposed to great art is not a luxury, but required as part of the human condition, as you insinuate.

I think it's cute how you like to portray yourself as an intellectual but then you make childish, snide remarks like this.

No worse than your thinly veiled attempts at doing the same. Nice name, by the way. Nothing childish there.

You should make your own points.

I do. Is there anything wrong with pointing out that he has helped further the conversation? I think, at this point, you are really doing nothing but feeding your own sense of self-worth via the internet.

Can you indicate where I said that I would be "comfortable allowing the government to decide what is art and what isn't?"

I didn't. That is more in the idea that that is what will happen. Although you point to peer review, that system is highly flawed as well. I see "entertaining the masses" as much a part for government funding (and I have been a part of this application process) as any "elevating the art" component. Moreso, I would think that the "entertaining the masses" has a much higher impact when getting approved for public funds. Mainly because the "peer" in peer review is a fallacy.

[Matt G]

In the example given, the BSO is a jukebox of classical music pieces that people want to hear because they have heard them a million times before.

Nice that you can make that statement in anonymity.

They have at least 3 premiers listed this season. How many works are you going to premier this year?

http://www.bso.org/bso/mods/series_deta ... omRenewal=

[cjk]

The only thing I'm missing is why this thread isn't locked already.

All I see is a political argument.

[Lauronie]

The ultimate in government-subsidized musical groups are the military bands.

Does anyone want to make the argument that military bands promote forward-progress in the development of new musical styles, genres, etc., the way privately-funded groups, like those who performed new works by Mozart and Beethoven, did?

I don't.

Developing music as an art form is not the purpose of military bands. The fact that this sometimes happens anyway is a bonus.

[Uncle Buck]

The ultimate in government-subsidized musical groups are the military bands.

Does anyone want to make the argument that military bands promote forward-progress in the development of new musical styles, genres, etc., the way privately-funded groups, like those who performed new works by Mozart and Beethoven, did?

I don't.

Developing music as an art form is not the purpose of military bands. The fact that this sometimes happens anyway is a bonus.

I agree 100% - which is partially why I don't believe any government subsidized forum will be the best avenue to develop music as an art form.

*Edit* - for clarification, I am NOT saying that government subsidized music does not serve good, useful purposes, and I am NOT saying that it should not continue. I am just saying that I believe "music as an art forum" develops better in other venues.

[Rick Denney]

It's called "capitalism". Fortunately, you can't force me to hire you to play music at "your" price, and I can't force you to hire me to take dents out of your instrument for "my" price.

No, not capitalism. Free enterprise. Capitalism is a form of distributing shares of ownership in an enterprise in return for capital (money) for the purpose of putting that money to productive (and therefore remunerative) use. Free enterprise is what you mean when you say that you can choose to sell anything you want for any price, but I as the buyer am also free to choose to buy and pay only what I think it's worth.

Communism attacked both principles by having only state-owned enterprise and by making stuff according to central planning rather than market demand.

The difference between price and cost is often a hard lesson for those who have spent years perfecting a craft. Not all crafts are well-paid just based on the expertise of the artist. For example, I doubt that anybody (including you) is willing to pay, say, a Morse-code telegraph operator, even though this was a good line of work 75 years ago that required the development of finely tuned skills. At the end, the few who are interested in something both specialized and archaic pay each other to demonstrate it, or learn it as a hobby.

Rick "a practitioner of several non-remunerative crafts" Denney

[tofu]

--

[Rick Denney]

Actually Joe's use of capitalism fits the dictionary definition spot on.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. I wasn't saying his use was wrong according to Webster, I was making a point about the difference between capitalism and free enterprise that most folks miss. When he uses the term capitalism, which originally meant the method by which enterprise is funded and therefore by which capital is made productive (i.e., private ownership of the means of production), he leaves out the possibility of having capitalism without free enterprise. For example, a country can allow private capital to be used to fund enterprise in return for ownership, but still deeply regulate prices and selling venues. And a country can allow individuals to buy and sell freely, but not allow enterprise to use private capital to multiply its productivity. The latter describes China pretty well, though there has been some relaxation of private capital regulation in very recent years. They are, of course, related--private capital investment is hard to motivate without some measure of free enterprise, and it's hard to fund free enterprise without some measure of private capital investment.

What Joe described has more to do with the choices by buyers and sellers than by the use of private capital to fund the means of production.

The first sentence from the Wikipedia entry on capitalism describes the definition I'm using:

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

That definition has reasonably authoritative sources. (Though Wikipedia then links "free enterprise" to the "capitalism" entry, mostly because that's where it is explained.)

Rick "narrowing it down to the private ownership of the means of production" Denney