Posted by Rick Denney on May 06, 2003 at 16:02:37:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Our business posted by Bill on May 06, 2003 at 15:40:56:
Your analogy fails because pornography is not art, despite that it uses artistic media and despite that the line between it and art is so hard to draw. It makes money not because it is art, but because it satisfies a decidedly non-artistic demand from people with money to spend. "Art" is always defined by the motives and responses of the consumer of that art.
You are missing the point that if you force people to support art they don't like, eventually they will get angry with you and vote you out of office. I've seen it happen repeatedly at the local level, and it is the basis for the wars over the National Endowment for the Humanities. When we saw what the government was using our tax money to support, we could not tolerate their definition of culture. They are more conservative in their practices now, and now we are hearing complaints from avant-garde artists who sound a lot like Joe with his lawn. No, I don't think the system is working very well at all. Government has no morals, and without morals there can be no discernment in art or anything else. This is why we limit government.
Playing music used to be part of the entertainment package available to children. Reading books, building blocks, and a very small number of other toys rounded out the program. Thus, lots of children played music because it was among the most fun of their choices. Now, kids have so many more options for passive stimulation that active stimulation doesn't stand a chance. People take the path of least resistance. So, if you want to impose culture, you should talk to the parents. Trouble is, those parents also grew up with that passive stimulation. Orchestra music just isn't sensually stimulating enough, and its intellectual and emotional stimulation requires training and experience that most folks don't have.
Rick "who thinks you can't legislate popularity" Denney