John Kennedy on Art

[Craig234]

A recurring theme in conservative politics (as opposed to ideology) is pandering to people who do not appreciate art to gain their vote - to screw them financially.

'Whatever they want culturally, give it to them - ten commandments at city hall, prayer in school, censor anti-Christian or 'obscene' art, whatever.

'Just don't give them anything financially at the expense of our real interest, the rich always having more.'

So, I'd like to put up a reminder of what another President had to say about the role of art - the sort of thing we Democrats like presidents to say, even if some don't.

http://arts.endow.gov/about/Kennedy.html

I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology...

I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose...

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well.

This is in stark contrast, sadly, to most of today's right, who have no concern for the second things listed - only for the first, the power, the wealth.

Who actually disdain and criticize the second things more than value them.

Let's be clear, Kennedy was not an artist; he has pretty 'uncultured' in many ways. But he valued the arts, and he was a champion for them. A politician doesn't need to be expert at something to champion it. Kennedy couldn't fly to the moon but he could fly others. Gore couldn't invent an internet but he could lead the support to invent it.

Kennedy had many cultural events at the White House - often asking basic questions to prepare for them, but pleased to be supporting them. And he gave a speech like this, and he supported the arts in other ways - a reason why the United States' Center for Performing Arts is named for him.

Robert Kennedy did things as well, organizing frequent events for many of the nation's top government people, such as Supreme Court Justices to come to his home and listen to lectures on topics of principle, just to help the government be better and do better for people. This was a culture good for the country.

Kennedy was right about the value of these things - and we hear too little of that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Who are you quoting, exactly, in your "commentary?" Or are you simply pre-emptively fabricating strawmen in the form of manufactured quotes? Is it suddenly ok if you put single quotes around it instead of double quotes? You're pathetic. Maybe someone would care what you had to say if you weren't such a douchebag in your approach. Everyone knows this.

 

[jhbball]

Who are you quoting, exactly, in your "commentary?" Or are you simply pre-emptively fabricating strawmen in the form of manufactured quotes? Is it suddenly ok if you put single quotes around it instead of double quotes? You're pathetic. Maybe someone would care what you had to say if you weren't such a douchebag in your approach. Everyone knows this.

you mad?

 

[PeshakJang]

you mad?

Sometimes being mad and being right are the same thing... this is one of those cases.

 

[Moonbeam]

The patriarchal right brained Neanderthals that make up the right hate anything that threatens their dominance in society, things like intelligence and sensitivity, art and holistic thinking. The hyper masculinity is threatened by anything queer. Theses are those who think with their dicks, the asshole testosterone male.

 

[Lemon law]

I have no problem with the Craig234 post, a subject with so much meat on it, simply because artists and musicians have always, through history, have been always the leaders in social and political thought.

But sadly, historians can only address those issues with backwards facing eyes, because in any present society, its very hard if not impossible to discuss those trends in the present tense.

 

[Throckmorton]

A great nation deserves great art, and ours comes from Hollywood and the Internet. The art gallery is quaint and outdated... it only exists for the sake of the "emperor's new clothes" crowd.

 

[Infohawk]

Both sides only tolerate 'art' that they approve of. You won't see liberals backing art that attacks Islam for example.

 

[werepossum]

Conservatives appreciate art as much as liberals, we just have differing ideas about its rightful role in society. Conservatives believe that if art is good, people will pay to see it or own it. Liberals believe in finding art and artists that support their agenda, then forcing people to pay for it whether they consider it to be art or not. Thus we have crucifixes in urine, videos of ants crawling on a Jesus statue, performance art. Because even liberals know these things suck as art, the only way they can exist is if liberals extort money - to support the "artists", to furnish staffed buildings where they may be displayed.

A great nation deserves great art, and ours comes from Hollywood and the Internet. The art gallery is quaint and outdated... it only exists for the sake of the "emperor's new clothes" crowd.

A valid point. Imagine movies if government paid for the theaters and movies didn't have to be even minimally commercially feasible. We'd be seeing two hours of different crucifixes in different containers of urine - maybe not all that offensive, but certainly not The Matrix.

 

[Zorkorist]

Beauty (Art), is in the eye of the beholder.

The only time art has to do with politics or government, is when politics or government are getting into a place where they should not be.

-John

"Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may."
-Plato, Symposium

 

[Craig234]

Both sides only tolerate 'art' that they approve of. You won't see liberals backing art that attacks Islam for example.

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies. I can't remember the other 5%.

I'd 'tolerate' art that attacks Muslims - and have. I can criticize it.

IMO, that's not real 'art' usually anyway, it's some right wing bigot who thinks he's clever trying to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'.

Like the righties who advocate a 'Miss White America' pageant claiming they have no bigotry in their motive.

And oh by the way, I've 'attacked Islam' for a number of things at some length here - things that could fit art just fine. How about art about gays in some Islam societies?

 

[Sinsear]

Craig loves dynasties?

 

[manimal]

Art has a central role in any society. It is a mirror into the soul of the artist and his culture. If we look throughout history civilizations are judged by the knowledge and art they leave behind.

If you look at the great men and women of history one can see many instances of the right mind or talent at the right place and time. Imagine Einstein was born in West Virginia coal country in the 50s......or in the time of the black plague...
These singular men and women only became who and what they were by the breath of experiences and teaching they received. If we as a people do not value and support the arts we are giving into the true decline of our culture. If these singular people are not exposed to these art forms and nurtured the fruit of their excellence would never have been possible.
The notion raised above that art galleries are only for "the emperor's new clothes" crowd has never experienced a museum trough the eyes of a child or a painting by a master. If he had he would see that art is a great equalizer in culture. The most lowly born can attain greater heights than those most fortunate few.

I grew up in a country that was experiencing great turmoil and financial peril in the 70s. The government nor their people never considered cutting back on arts and even created more ways for anyone to train a special gift. I could play piano, read music, compose and lead music before the age of 12. If you look at early education many countries surpass our math, science, and art capacities with much less funding per capita.

We truly tread on dangerous ground if throw away the things that make up our soul...

 

[manimal]

Beauty (Art), is in the eye of the beholder.

The only time art has to do with politics or government, is when politics or government are getting into a place where they should not be.

-John

"Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may."
-Plato, Symposium

I recommend you read up on the french revolution. Free though was born in the minds of the artists and poets ..

 

[irishScott]

Here we go. When the Dems held everything, we had Patranus, PJabber and company. Now that he Repubs got something back, we've got all of the above + Craig, and I imagine Shira and a few others soon to join.

 

[Zorkorist]

As soon as art is bought and paid for by the Government, then it no longer posseses the impact of art.

I realize that artists would like to be paid, and I don't deny them Government contracts, but I will or would like to deny the Government paying them, because then you get all this other bull-shit.

So, anyway, I think you are right.

Let Art live.

But Art lives, independent of Government.

-John

 

[Throckmorton]

Art has a central role in any society. It is a mirror into the soul of the artist and his culture. If we look throughout history civilizations are judged by the knowledge and art they leave behind.

If you look at the great men and women of history one can see many instances of the right mind or talent at the right place and time. Imagine Einstein was born in West Virginia coal country in the 50s......or in the time of the black plague...
These singular men and women only became who and what they were by the breath of experiences and teaching they received. If we as a people do not value and support the arts we are giving into the true decline of our culture. If these singular people are not exposed to these art forms and nurtured the fruit of their excellence would never have been possible.
The notion raised above that art galleries are only for "the emperor's new clothes" crowd has never experienced a museum trough the eyes of a child or a painting by a master. If he had he would see that art is a great equalizer in culture. The most lowly born can attain greater heights than those most fortunate few.

I grew up in a country that was experiencing great turmoil and financial peril in the 70s. The government nor their people never considered cutting back on arts and even created more ways for anyone to train a special gift. I could play piano, read music, compose and lead music before the age of 12. If you look at early education many countries surpass our math, science, and art capacities with much less funding per capita.

We truly tread on dangerous ground if throw away the things that make up our soul...

Art education is great. I took 3 years of art in high school and art history in college, and I make sculpt sand every weekend.

Art galleries are a social venue, especially for the emperor's new clothes people, who don't know anything about art. That's why you can create some random garbage, slap an "abstract" label on it, and sell it for thousands.

There is more great art on deviantART than in every art gallery in the country put together.

 

[Throckmorton]

As soon as art is bought and paid for by the Government, then it no longer posseses the impact of art.

I realize that artists would like to be paid, and I don't deny them Government contracts, but I will or would like to deny the Government paying them, because then you get all this other bull-shit.

So, anyway, I think you are right.

Let Art live.

But Art lives, independent of Government.

-John

I think the only art that government should pay for is obvious propaganda. For example, a mural showing Obama leading a crowd of people of all different colors wielding implements of their work, like wrenches and and shovels and John Deere tractors and Chevy pickups.

But government shouldn't fund or facilitate religious art, antireligious art, etc.

 

[Zorkorist]

I think you are right.

But since we cannot distinguish between the two, Government just shouldn't pay for art.

-John

 

[manimal]

Art education is great. I took 3 years of art in high school and art history in college, and I make sculpt sand every weekend.

Art galleries are a social venue, especially for the emperor's new clothes people, who don't know anything about art. That's why you can create some random garbage, slap an "abstract" label on it, and sell it for thousands.

There is more great art on deviantART than in every art gallery in the country put together.

I agree that the digital art being made is very relevant right now and may very well fit your tastes, try to cede that there are people out there with a different aesthetic tastes and some dare we say aesthetically challenged...while sometimes gauche or provincial local art galleries can yield some treasures with myself and manyfriends in LA finding good art and furniture from very young artists and craftsmen that ended up being much more expensive later..

If the art galleries near you suck the ones I have gone to the world over often were interesting and sometimes exceptional.

 

[Zebo]

Art and emotion is why we live IMO. Very important. When I see a Gustav Klimt painting it speaks to me, when i see children smiling it speaks to me it's hard to desicribe but it's sure as shit is not like work which is often times cold calculating and vapid. It's like the ying and yang if that makes sense. You got to have both.

 

[Zebo]

Had anyone been in Hong Kong before China took it over? Whole city was laid out in Feng Shui and it was the most beautiful large city on the planet. I hate cities and wanted to be there. Art is important in design of commercial stuff as well.. Apple, Hong kong, incheon airport south korea and many more...

 

[JMapleton]

I agree that art is an important part of society.

But art is reserved for a country that has built it's financial base to support non essential activities like this in society. The United States is a declining power and our middle classes have no wealth, little personal time, and grew up in a society that did not teach them the importance of the arts, philosophy, literature, or much of any other related subject. Just turn on the televusion, we're a nation of mongrels. Jersey Shore, BET, daytime soap shows. People care nothing for the arts.

The United States needs to take a step back and it needs a generation of people to take a lesson from third world countries and work hard, strive, live below our means, and save, and most importantly produce.

We need a generation of capitalists and business owners BEFORE we can have a nation of artists and musicians.

John Adams once said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”

The United States is a declining empire. We need an industrial rerevolution to revitalize and create massive amounts of wealth in the middle and upper middle classes (most upper middle class people don't even have much wealth).

This will cause more people's children to attend college not just for job purposes, but private colleges for the arts. Wealthy families are the number one source of the artistic and creative. Exceptions happen, but you don't usually learn to be artistic growing up in a life of struggle. Artists come from backgrounds where they were taught to be creative and sophisticated and we given the education to put this on paper.

I am in a way an example of this. I'm writing this after finishing a 16 hour shift at work. I also own a business which I feel confident that it will be a source of financial freedom for my descendants so they can study they things they enjoy, not the things they must to survive.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I wish I could be an artist, writer, musician, etc, but that's not my place. My place is to secure this dream for my descendents.

 

[cubby1223]

I think the only art that government should pay for is obvious propaganda. For example, a mural showing Obama leading a crowd of people of all different colors wielding implements of their work, like wrenches and and shovels and John Deere tractors and Chevy pickups.

Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck.

 

[cubby1223]

our real interest, the rich always having more.'

Look, I shrank your post and kept all the necessary information!

Get a life.

Please.

You just like government funding art because it allows progressives another talking-point friendly option to redistribute wealth through.