Posted: 4/4/17 at 7:52am
cater only to elites.
Oh, do shut up about the elites, won't you, you sanctimonious PRIVILEGED white man.
Posted: 4/4/17 at 8:42am
Yeah, the FREE outdoor concerts that our symphony orchestra puts on down here (in Orlando), free to anyone who wishes to attend, courtesy of NEA funding, are so elitist!
Posted: 4/4/17 at 9:52am
Put it to rest, gather your priorities and realize this is nothing in the big picture.
Posted: 4/4/17 at 12:51pm
Director, there were many things in that list that are elitist. If you're familiar with South Florida many of those venues are in the heart of the wealthy areas of town and cater only to elites.
So, based on your view, just cut off the nose to spite the face and let the "non-elitist" organizations (in your opinion) suffer.
My priorities include this rather significant subject in the big picture. Not to mention, it's a slippery slope. You want conservative-based budget cuts? Careful what you wish for. You'll see FAR more benefits for the "elites" than these subsidized organizations could ever dream of. And it's not going to be just these cuts...no, this is about the conservative Republican agenda, so it will go hand-in-hand with so many of their lovely ideas. Education? Pfft! It's for the rich, so why should we help poor people get educated? But if you like guns, gun-related deaths, war, nuclear threat, then I guess it would seem like a brilliant option.
Elites...LOL Going to "drain the swamp" like the current clown car administration?
Posted: 4/21/17 at 10:42pm
Consistency said: ""And, as I stated before, the NEA leads to government censorship."
Of course, any kind of sponsorship, governmental or otherwise, is going to involve some "restrictions" on the work being produced.
In other words, you're going to have "censorship" either way - but at least with the NEA we get a wider variety of works being produced. Plus, so far, the NEA has been pretty "liberal" in what it's willing to support - it has allowed for the creation of plenty of adventurous, challenging works of art that aren't always in lockstep with any official "government" viewpoint or narrative.
To put it another way, your "policy" would result in a less adventurous arts community in the United States - one where the almighty dollar and a handful of generous donors decide what does and doesn't get made.
"
With the federal government funding the arts you end up with two types of "art" or "artists"; those that the federal government supports, and those that the federal government does NOT support. You might be happy because the federal government might subsidize the arts you like, but what if the art I like does not get funded? (Or vice versa.)
Thus, government censorship.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
