William
Thus there is little in the existing social structure or marketplace
that would embrace the sort of art that most high quality art
programs aim to foster.
I think this will be the "money shot" to Miller. Sit tight, William.
As for your comments about the performing arts, bear in mind that an
important factor is cost. It takes a lot of money to put on a ballet,
concert, or play. Not to mention a feature-length movie. Even one-
person performances require a theater or auditorium and all the things
that go with them.
Visual artists and writers labor alone and typically don't require a
lot of capital (excluding the needs of the big metal sculptors).
Many years ago, I observed that the funding for the arts, via NEA
grants and similar benefactors, offers full-time employment to a lot
of administrative staff and very few artists. Notable among the
artists who receive what amounts to full-time employment are symphony
orchestras. Because the performers have to rehearse and travel
together, they are paid a larger stipend or salary, compared to the
typical $5K or $10K that *a few* painters receive as an outright
grant, or, more often, for an "artist in the schools"-type of
arrangement.
Things may have changed over the years and these remarks my not
perfectly fit the situation, but I think it gets to the salient part.
Another thing: Democracy and capitalism are great "harrowers," turners
over of the soil, which is the way to promote the new growth. It's the
sabbatical and jubilee year of forgiving debts and starting over
again. What once was first is now last. Cabanel's polished putti are
now Cezanne's scumbled landscapes.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
