Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fascism is very bad indeed. But, what is happening in this country, and what I fear the vast majority of people are missing is that it may be seeping into our system quietly.
Please read the two links above. The first one describes how Germany's Fascist Government used the arts as a tool for the state to "manufacture consent," as it were (a term used by Chomsky, I believe.) The Arts under German Fascism were promoted by the National Chamber of Culture, which would be the equivelent of our National Endowment of the Arts. The NCC promoted a set of values esteemed by the nation.
The second link, entitled "The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion" written by an artist, btw tells of our current administrations' call to enlist the aid of the National Endowment for the Arts to direct "the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate; those being health care reform and cap-an-trade legislation." (And while the article does not directly address a pro-homosexual/anti-Christianity agenda via the arts, it would not surprise me when you consider that the Obama appointed, Safe School Czar, Kevin Jennings wrote the forward to the book, "Que*ring Elementary Education," which addresses the issue of using art, music and literature to "educate" school children about homosexuality when the curriculum does not allow direct teaching of it.)
I, personally, believe that the Federal Government is overreaching its boundaries and that the use of taxpayer dollars to support artwork with an agenda, whether its cap and trade or anti-Christianity is wrong. It reminds me too much of Fascism. I am NOT opposed to privately funded controversial artwork. I am very much for free speech. I have even dabbled in the arts, myself and am supportive of the arts. But I do not like the mix of government and the arts. It reminds me too much of Hitler's Germany.
Please, please, please take the time to read these two links. Constructive feedback is welcome.
I think that second link is very much a legitimate concern. The problem as I see it is that the commercial interest environment of media advocates all the things they're selling have dominated the landscape, particularly in urban areas. It's a relentless assault of the senses. Billboards, flyers, magazines, a million commercials. On the subject of healthcare, how many insurance industry advocates do I need to listen to?
The grant format of NEA is basically a call to artists with an open ended assignment. If there is a conservative perspective about the subject of healthcare, did they neglect the assignment? Did they fail to submit? Or did a steering committee attempting to promote a singular agenda disqualify one point of view to favor another? I'm fairly certain the former and not the latter is the case. Conservatives lean on madison avenue too hard instead of encouraging constituents to create their own art. The problem is, and has always been, the conservative habit of trying to control what gets said. Conservative artists must therefore put themselves in a position of being cheerleaders for a singular vision that runs contrary to the complexity of reality. Again, Christian artists are not promoted because they fail to live up the rennaisance standard. Any deviation from that format they are marginalized by Christians themselves. Same thing happens regarding each issue point by point.
Museums are nothing more than a platform, like public access TV channels, anyone is free to submit their work to curators. Quality does count, however. The point of art is to stimulate thought and present perspectives or aspects of an issue that haven't been brought to light. It's a muscle, a part of our brains, that is infrequently exercised in main stream life. Art is something of an incubator for ideas, and the ideas themselves need to stand or fall on their own merits. Can you distinguish the difference between commercialism selling an agenda vs artistic expression cultivating thought/ debate?
As for children, the purpose of education is? I hear this term indoctrination coming regularly from people resorting to propaganda tactics themselves. Being aware of reality is not dangerous to children, it's crucial for their survival. As for freedoms, or moral choices, it is the obligation of the parent to teach their children the fact of life balancing religious traditions in secular existence-- just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should do a thing. Spending quality time explaining to children the reasoning behind why they should refrain isn't something the government can force anyone to do, but there have been numerous PSA/public ad campaigns encouraging that 'agenda'. Another 'agenda' promoted by government-- "just say no to drugs".
So, are these 'agendas' in peoples face steering them like sheep into one world view? IMO it's a call to citizens to recognize their responsibilities and take on the duty. Do you interpret them another way?
I think that second link is very much a legitimate concern. The problem as I see it is that the commercial interest environment of media advocates all the things they're selling have dominated the landscape, particularly in urban areas. It's a relentless assault of the senses. Billboards, flyers, magazines, a million commercials. On the subject of healthcare, how many insurance industry advocates do I need to listen to?
The grant format of NEA is basically a call to artists with an open ended assignment. If there is a conservative perspective about the subject of healthcare, did they neglect the assignment? Did they fail to submit? Or did a steering committee attempting to promote a singular agenda disqualify one point of view to favor another? I'm fairly certain the former and not the latter is the case. Conservatives lean on madison avenue too hard instead of encouraging constituents to create their own art. The problem is, and has always been, the conservative habit of trying to control what gets said. Conservative artists must therefore put themselves in a position of being cheerleaders for a singular vision that runs contrary to the complexity of reality. Again, Christian artists are not promoted because they fail to live up the rennaisance standard. Any deviation from that format they are marginalized by Christians themselves. Same thing happens regarding each issue point by point.
Museums are nothing more than a platform, like public access TV channels, anyone is free to submit their work to curators. Quality does count, however. The point of art is to stimulate thought and present perspectives or aspects of an issue that haven't been brought to light. It's a muscle, a part of our brains, that is infrequently exercised in main stream life. Art is something of an incubator for ideas, and the ideas themselves need to stand or fall on their own merits. Can you distinguish the difference between commercialism selling an agenda vs artistic expression cultivating thought/ debate?
As for children, the purpose of education is? I hear this term indoctrination coming regularly from people resorting to propaganda tactics themselves. Being aware of reality is not dangerous to children, it's crucial for their survival. As for freedoms, or moral choices, it is the obligation of the parent to teach their children the fact of life balancing religious traditions in secular existence-- just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should do a thing. Spending quality time explaining to children the reasoning behind why they should refrain isn't something the government can force anyone to do, but there have been numerous PSA/public ad campaigns encouraging that 'agenda'. Another 'agenda' promoted by government-- "just say no to drugs".
So, are these 'agendas' in peoples face steering them like sheep into one world view? IMO it's a call to citizens to recognize their responsibilities and take on the duty. Do you interpret them another way?
Well, the "just say no to drugs" campaign/agenda was really not controversial, was it? It was promoting the rejection of something illegal. And, I'm not aware of the use of the NEA to subsidize it. I see a difference and cause for concern with the Obama administration calling forth the art community to "inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were 'health care and 'energy and environment.' These issues were under heated national debate at the time of the meeting. This surreptitious cohabitating, if you will, of the government and the arts can lead to dangerous results. And the end of the article captures it, when the author asks, "Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?" after quoting comments made by the NEA, "This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?...bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely..."
This is truly cause for alarm and suspician. It seems to me that the NEA is in cahoots with the Federal Government and trying to use the art community as their pawns to spread their agenda. And whether or not you agree with that agenda is really not the point.
This needs to be investigated and resolved and until then, I am in favor of withdrawing taxpayer funding from NEA. I love art. I love freedom. I fear Fascism and I do not believe "the ends justify the means."
BTW, thank you for your civilized response. These are very contentious topics and it is always easy to lose our "cool."
Well, the "just say no to drugs" campaign/agenda was really not controversial, was it? It was promoting the rejection of something illegal. And, I'm not aware of the use of the NEA to subsidize it.
NEA and PSA's of all sorts are government sponsored 'agendas'. I'm calling to your attention that the subject header is much bigger than money going to any given museum. What I'm trying to get across is something libertarians raise as legitimate point of governance-- where do we draw the line for what any government or government policy should promote or reject? I agree with them on this point and find all too often that extreme right and extreme left are regularly abusing the arm of law & policy in an attempt to make war on one another, truth being the first casualty, the greater good being the second. We are working against one another & squandering 'company time' with unproductive nonsense, and at times, destructive nonsense.
Just say no to drugs campaign is nonetheless an 'agenda' on technicality. Really it all comes down to maligning anything that someone may disagree. The campaign was criticized by teenagers themselves who felt Nancy Reagan to be oblivious to the peer pressures of drug culture targeting them. I agree with the campaign as a positive message, but I also agree with those teen agers that adults let them down. They do need to be armed more to resist peer pressure. How to solve that, the elephant in the room, parents need to step up. Standing on a soapbox wagging a finger at parents goes over like a lead balloon. Just ask Cosby, being accused of traitor to his race for daring to address adults to step up & lead by example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBMe
I see a difference and cause for concern with the Obama administration calling forth the art community to "inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were 'health care and 'energy and environment.' These issues were under heated national debate at the time of the meeting. This surreptitious cohabitating, if you will, of the government and the arts can lead to dangerous results. And the end of the article captures it, when the author asks, "Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?" after quoting comments made by the NEA, "This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?...bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely..."
This is truly cause for alarm and suspician. It seems to me that the NEA is in cahoots with the Federal Government and trying to use the art community as their pawns to spread their agenda. And whether or not you agree with that agenda is really not the point.
This needs to be investigated and resolved and until then, I am in favor of withdrawing taxpayer funding from NEA. I love art. I love freedom. I fear Fascism and I do not believe "the ends justify the means."
BTW, thank you for your civilized response. These are very contentious topics and it is always easy to lose our "cool."
Again I ask you-- how is discussing ideas, or considering ideas, worthy of the characterization 'agenda'? If a predigested conclusion selling a specific rigid utopic plan were the case, I'd have my shotgun off the wall right alongside you. The open ended grant allows for all voices, and that only one side showed up to present their view doesn't amount to favoritism.
The issue of health care hasn't had a chance to be a debate when negotiations are in bad faith. The frustration of the masses getting status quo shoved down our throats for decades--- not much in congress is an actual debate, but a perpetual struggle of commercial entities oppressing the will of the people. I'm listening to republicans in this forum, and in congress, defend the right of commercial enterprise to hold citizens hostage, lined up quietly for their corporate sponsored fleecing. Where in that argument is a plan or a means for citizens to take control of their own lives?
Suppression of free speech in service to status quo is calling a spade a spade. Conservatives stuck in habits of bullying, believing themselves to have all the answers of utopic idealism. It's antithetical to the dynamic living document that is our Constitution. Failing to present a viable option and denying the systemic problems of health care won't make it go away. It won't fix itself, and believing it will is willful neglect. Just because people dislike aspects of a plan or it's method of delivery doesn't negate the need for a plan, meaningful reforms, and most importantly, meaningful consideration of all options. More choice is good, one choice is communism. Correct?
Worshiping politicians- you'd be able to pay attention better if you had more self discipline. It's a vicious spiral. Don't take my word for it, go to your bible.
I'd be able to pay attention better if my adult ADHD would go away. Or maybe if you actually made some sense once in awhile. And again, wrong capitalization of Bible...Catholic, my eye.
NEA and PSA's of all sorts are government sponsored 'agendas'. I'm calling to your attention that the subject header is much bigger than money going to any given museum. What I'm trying to get across is something libertarians raise as legitimate point of governance-- where do we draw the line for what any government or government policy should promote or reject? I agree with them on this point and find all too often that extreme right and extreme left are regularly abusing the arm of law & policy in an attempt to make war on one another, truth being the first casualty, the greater good being the second. We are working against one another & squandering 'company time' with unproductive nonsense, and at times, destructive nonsense.
Just say no to drugs campaign is nonetheless an 'agenda' on technicality. Really it all comes down to maligning anything that someone may disagree. The campaign was criticized by teenagers themselves who felt Nancy Reagan to be oblivious to the peer pressures of drug culture targeting them. I agree with the campaign as a positive message, but I also agree with those teen agers that adults let them down. They do need to be armed more to resist peer pressure. How to solve that, the elephant in the room, parents need to step up. Standing on a soapbox wagging a finger at parents goes over like a lead balloon. Just ask Cosby, being accused of traitor to his race for daring to address adults to step up & lead by example.
Again I ask you-- how is discussing ideas, or considering ideas, worthy of the characterization 'agenda'? If a predigested conclusion selling a specific rigid utopic plan were the case, I'd have my shotgun off the wall right alongside you. The open ended grant allows for all voices, and that only one side showed up to present their view doesn't amount to favoritism.
The issue of health care hasn't had a chance to be a debate when negotiations are in bad faith. The frustration of the masses getting status quo shoved down our throats for decades--- not much in congress is an actual debate, but a perpetual struggle of commercial entities oppressing the will of the people. I'm listening to republicans in this forum, and in congress, defend the right of commercial enterprise to hold citizens hostage, lined up quietly for their corporate sponsored fleecing. Where in that argument is a plan or a means for citizens to take control of their own lives?
Suppression of free speech in service to status quo is calling a spade a spade. Conservatives stuck in habits of bullying, believing themselves to have all the answers of utopic idealism. It's antithetical to the dynamic living document that is our Constitution. Failing to present a viable option and denying the systemic problems of health care won't make it go away. It won't fix itself, and believing it will is willful neglect. Just because people dislike aspects of a plan or it's method of delivery doesn't negate the need for a plan, meaningful reforms, and most importantly, meaningful consideration of all options. More choice is good, one choice is communism. Correct?
I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
