From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #684 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Thursday, April 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 684 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:43:51 -0700 From: "Shelly Johnson-Choong" Subject: Re: [AML] POTOK, _Old Men at Midnight_ (Review) I didn't read David Hansen's review because I hope to pick up the book soon. I've just finished reading _The Chosen_, and _The Promise_, and feel that David touches on some things I've been thinking about. He writes in part: Potok has > been held up by some as what Mormon letters "ought" to be like,> > A few years ago a friend of mine (on this list, no less!) recommended I read > _The Chosen_ by Chaim Potok. That story followed two young boys in their > struggle to determine and understand how they fit in with the strict Hasidic > Jewish culture and modern society. It was an eye opening experience, and > changed the way I looked at literature. Shortly after finishing _The > Chosen_ I devoured the Asher Lev books, and became an avid fan of Potok's > work, even though these works were personally troublesome to me. After > reading these books, it became easy to see how his types of stories, i.e. > the culture clash, could be applied to LDS situations, and I longed to see > good LDS literature follow his same pattern. > The other thing that Potok does so well is that he writes about the Jewish experience for an audience that is primarily non-Jewish. I'm fascinated by his ability to let me (the reader) into a world I doubt I will ever exerperience first hand. That's a big part of what I would like to see LDS writers do. I know that for me, as an LDS author, I have written for LDS people; those who understand what a "calling" is or the role the bishop plays in our lives. I think a far trickier piece of work would be to write for an audience that doesn't have a built in knowledge of our way of life. But I think a couple of things need to happen in order for our work to reach a broader non-LDS reading community. First of all, I think we need to write with real clarity. As an individual author writes his/her story each would have to decide what would go into the novel and what would be left out. That's one of the things I'm struggling with right now. I'm in the throes of writing a novel that I hope will eventually be distributed nationally. My characters are LDS. Their challenges, their hopes and joys include their religion. Their religion isn't just what they do. It's who they are. So what is going to clarify my characters positions in their relation to the church and the gospel and what would simply be unnecessary and/or confusing window dressing? And how do I explain all of that to someone who isn't LDS? I think that would be determined by each individual story, but I also believe it has to be extremely clear in each individual story. Which leads me to my next point. Potok has written several books, and the two that I've read have given me a little bit more, or a different slant on being Jewish. I think as LDS writers we need to concentrate more on small every day life stories that illustrate what it means to be LDS instead of trying to encompass it all in one grand work. This is what Potok does so well. He's not going for the big production that explains all of Judaism. In the books I've read, he's simply telling me a small every day life story about Jewish young men who are working out their conflicts and problems in a way that encompasses their faith, because their faith is who they are. After reading two of Potok's books I have never felt like he's taught me all there is to being Jewish. And guess what? That actually invites me to pick up his next book. I have two points here. One is that Potok's work is character driven and that his characters happen to be Jewish. The second point I'm trying to make is that Potok hasn't tried to show us about being Jewish in one work. He's written several books about Jewish people working through every day life problems. Each of those books gives us something a little different. That's what I would like to see LDS writers do. I think that there is so much depth and richness in the LDS doctrine, and in the way individual LDS people apply that doctrine to keep all of us busy for a very long time. Now for a disclaimer. I flew the red-eye last night. I've been awake for 27 hours. I don't have any idea how coherent any of this is, but I'm pushing that send button. Then I'm taking a nap. Shelly (Johnson-Choong) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:29:02 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference > A sacrament meeting speaker in my ward made an interesting point. He > compared Conference to King Benjamin's speech. After the king talked, the > people who heard or read his messages changed their ways (basically, the > whole population) and became good. After Conference. . . . . > > Well, what did you do after Conference? > I took a nap. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Wallace Stegner - --- Susan Malmrose wrote: > > Are you suggesting that Stegner was a Jack Mormon? We was not a Mormon > > at all, which is, I think, an important distinction. > > Can someone tell me what a Jack Mormon is? > > Susan M The original Nauvoo-era definition of "Jack Mormon" was a non-Mormon who was friendly to the church. I think there is a plant called jack-something that appears to be another kind of plant, but isn't really. In the Utah era, the meaning mutated into a description of a person who is now called by many a "cultural Mormon"--someone who does not have much affiliation with the organization but is still personally influenced by it, usually from their childhood. The old, not-to-be-used-anymore word was "inactive", of course. The term "Jack Mormon" is still used with a degree of affection, I think. Most who live in Utah have friends and family members who fit the bill. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:42:16 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing > > The reasons, (although some already stated), that I would be > reluctant to embrace the environmental movement whole-heartedly is > that people like me grew up hearing we'd be out of air, trees, water, > oil, land, you name it by the year 2000, if not before. And the reason we are still going is because some groups listened back then and did things about it. The EPA for instance, Congress passing laws against pollition, etc. All the harping back in our day did some good. So instead of being cyncial, you should be grateful. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:02:34 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re:[AML] Money and Art I'm opposed to the NEA and any government funding of the arts. As a "struggling artist," trying to make a living within the arts community, when I DO get work, why should I be expected to pay even two cents in taxes to support my competition. The fine arts are and always will be a business as long as artists have to eat, wear clears and have housing, and as long as any one values their creations enough to spend their own hard earned money to view these creations, listen to them or read them. In light of free agency, I see absolutely nothing wrong in any of this. In my view this is exactly how things should be. If I'm unhappy because no one likes what I create and therefore won't pay me or praise me, then perhaps I value popularity more than I do my creations. It's irrational of me to envy the artist who is popular and/or financially successful. (It may also be immoral. After all, there is that often forgotten commandment against coveting.) It would also be very self-serving to insist that the popular,financially successful artist is "a sell-out." (I'd be assuming that his objectives were the same as mine--which might not be the case.) This myth of "the artist who sells out" equates failure with artistic merit, giving credit to what I think is a lie regarding the nature of art and the nature of an art form's audience. But this equating of "important art" with commercial failure lies at the foundation of the NEA. The agency's philosophy seems to be that "Important art" will never be popular with mass audiences, so the government must make sure that such art is supported. Hog wash! Maybe what so many call "important art" is unpopular because it's-- - ---oops! This is an LDS forum, so I best watch my adjectives! Never mind: you get my meaning. Could it be that average people on the streets are not as stupid as so many in the artistic community think? Maybe they're smart enough to know when something doesn't speak to them. And if by chance, these average folk are unenlightened Philistines, how is the government any more justified morally to tax them to support art which they find uninspiring than it would be to tax them to support a religion that they find uninspiring? Both religion and art deal in the ream of ideas, and I thought the Constitution was to protect the individual from coercion on matters of conscience? As an professional artist, my attitude towards the business of art is that of Howard Roarke's in THE FOUNTAINHEAD: "I have customers in order to produce art; I don't produce art in order to have customers." If I don't have customers, I plug ahead any way, firm in the belief that at some future time when the art has been created, someone will appreciate it. Even if that never happens, at least I had the selfish joy of creating something in harmony with my personal values and vision. Since in the end "you can't take it [the money] with you," the memory of a life spent in such a pursuit will be payment enough. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:10:08 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art > >> In cases like that, the good taxpayers of our country do indeed want to control what their money pays for. Are they wrong for wanting that? << > > Yes. Absolutely. Taxpayers are just dead wrong to complain about the NEA, and especially specific avant-garde artists who receive grants. With all due respect to Eric Samuelsen, I think I agree with Kathy Tyner. I see nothing wrong with government supporting the arts, and in fact appreciate the fact that it does. At the very least, it subsidizes the cost of my concert tickets and allows me to see more travelling exhibits (though I do have some concern about the focus of museums on those exhibits - I think they're subverting an important function of museums). I can't help but notice that most of the people who attend classical concerts and hang out in museums are sort of pale and well-dressed, but we deserve subsidies as much as the next guy, don't we? More to the point, _someone_ has to decide what's going to be funded with NEA money, because there isn't enough to fund everything. And as long as that someone has the power to dispense money, that someon should be accountable. To whom? To art experts? Art experts aren't without their own prejudices - I suspect that they'd _rather_ pay to have a woman roll herself in chocolate and brocolli than to paint a pretty picture - so turning things over to them is just to give them free rein to satisfy their own preferences. Ultimately the people who pay the bills (and who, in consequence, have to give up consuming some of what they want so artists can produce and consume what they want) are the ones to whom the NEA director has to be responsible. That is, us, the public, the philistine masses. I don't think that direct democracy is the way to direct NEA money. That _would_ get us something bland and safe. Anyway, we live in a republic, and I'm happy to let my representative and senators let the NEA director know when I'm not happy. But if the NEA is going to give money to broccolli woman, its directors have no business complaining if the more vocal of us among the masses bellow our discontent to Congress and if Congress responds. There _have_ to be consequences for choices, and that includes choices on spending tax dollars to support particular artists and projects. Taxpayers are absolutely right to complain. They just aren't right to expect that their complaints will always change the way projects are funded. They are right to expect that if enough of them complain, Congress will force the NEA to respond. At the very least, the NEA has to explain convincingly to us why some projects should be funded and others aren't. > Absolutely fundamental principles of freedom of expression are at risk. But so are absolutely fundamental principles of taxation with representation. > In short, such is the nature of art, that we should expect, anticipate and applaud art works that receive support that we find personally offensive. I'll anticipate it, and I'll applaud the fact that art I find offensive _can_ be produced. I think it's a stretch to expect me to applaud the fact that I'm required to fund it without complaint, though. > If the NEA does not support works of art that bug the heck out of me, I don't think the NEA is doing its job. Otherwise, we'll be supporting bland, politically correct, inoffensive works of art, and that becomes the culture of our nation. Don't we end up supporting politically correct art anyway, just correct according to the politics of the NEA? > The USA spends a hundredth of what it should to support the arts, very much to our nation's cultural loss. But that's by the free choice of our citizens, very much to our nation's political gain. I'd like for people to spend more on the arts, and I'd like for there to be more, and more daring, theatrical companies, films, and musical compositions. But it should be a free choice, and artists shouldn't expect all the negative consequences of public funding to fall on the public. Artists are entitled to a voice, not to a public or to compensation. Those have to be earned, or the artist has to have to courage to speak in the face of contempt or complete indifference. The artist should bear some of the risks of the artistic endeavor, and that might mean being left to support himself. Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:53:00 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Gen. Conference On 16 Apr 2002 at 17:18, Barbara Hume wrote: > At 03:27 PM 4/15/02, you wrote: > >On another list we were > >discussing General Conference. As a rule, I don't find Conference > >very interesting, but I watch as much as I am able. > > A sacrament meeting speaker in my ward made an interesting point. He > compared Conference to King Benjamin's speech. After the king talked, > the people who heard or read his messages changed their ways > (basically, the whole population) and became good. After Conference. . > . . . > > Well, what did you do after Conference? > > > barbara hume > Well, tell the truth, I haven't heard much of mass conversions after General Conference. If you have some indication of this, I'll be glad to know about it . My best guess -- if King Benjamin gave the same speech every six months for 50 years, there might well be a less-pronounced effect on the listeners. I have yet to meet anyone personally who came to a point of repentance after listening to Conference. - ----- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com "We're all only fragile threads, but what a tapestry we make." Jerry Ellis, "Walking the Trail" - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:01:19 -0700 From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? Yesterday, I got an e-mail from a recent convert (also black) who said she didn't think she could remain in the Church because of what she had read about past statements regarding race. She said, "If a prophet said something that is untrue, how can he be a prophet?" I won't detail my responses, but these things we're talking about intellectually are very real barriers in many people's lives. Interestingly, this week I was also told that many in the Church consider that the "race issue" is over. It's not a problem anymore. Hmmmm. Somebody hasn't gotten that message south, I don't think. [Margaret Young] South to Africa? Maybe you are right, but spending the last forty years as a resident of the deep south (Georgia) I have observed that the members of both, or all, races have fewer problems with "the message" than do members in the Mountain West or the Northwest (where I often visit because that's where most of my extended family lives). Richard Johnson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:43:06 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Wallace Stegner > Can someone tell me what a Jack Mormon is? > > Susan M A Jack Mormon used to be a "Gentile" who was friendly to Mormons. But that was back c. 1850. I believe the term was coined by non-members. Nowaday the term refers to Mormons who are not zelots or who are 10,000% faithful and committed or who drink coffee and inadvertantly say "G*d D**n son of a b*tch" from the podium at testimony meeting. The last group have recently come to be known as "Paris Mormons." Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:22:11 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing Kathy Tyner wrote: > A number of years ago a couple of authors published > a pamphlet that I purchased in Deseret book entitled, > "Animals and The Gospel". The authors tracked down > a number of quotes and remarks that the Prophets and > other GA's have made concerning our treatment of > animal life and it's gospel applications. Many on the > list are old enough to remember Pres. Kimball's comments > concerning hunting and the admonition to only do so if > they meat was a necessity for providing for the family. A month or so ago, after listening to some kids in my SS class talking about setting small furry animals on fire, I tracked down this article in the archives: Gerald E. Jones, "The Gospel and Animals," Ensign, Aug. 1972, 62 It's a great article with quotes from many GAs and Prophets. My favorite part: "George Q. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any other Latter-day Saint. As editor of the Juvenile Instructor, he began in 1868 writing editorials advocating kindness to animals. In 1897 he announced the inauguration of the Sunday School-sponsored Humane Day, to be commemorated during the month of February. This program continued in the Church for the next twenty years." Another good quote: "President Lorenzo Snow related in his journal the change of heart he had concerning hunting shortly after his baptism: 'While moving slowly forward in pursuit of something to kill, my mind was arrested with the reflection on the nature of my pursuit-that of amusing myself by giving pain and death to harmless, innocent creatures that perhaps had as much right to life and enjoyment as myself. I realized that such indulgence was without any justification, and feeling condemned, I laid my gun on my shoulder, returned home, and from that time to this have felt no inclination for that murderous amusement.'" Jana Remy Irvine, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:34:56 -0700 From: "Tait Family" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing I'm enjoying the discussion on this topic. I tend to think of myself as a latent environmentalist--I don't like much of what's being done to our world but I feel helpless to do anything about it beyond separating my paper and plastic and being something of a recycling nazi in my home. We don't have to be able to prove that we are ruining the earth in order to be concerned at the lack of respect we show for it. Leaving aside global warming, how about just plain old litter? Ruined cars and washing machines rusting in vacant fields? Or yet another orchard torn up to make room for a shopping center that will sit empty within a few years when the company that built it goes bankrupt? One direction for environmental writing would be to show environmentalism as more than tree hugging and arguments over ozone. As some have pointed out, Mormon theology offers the possibility of a unifying, balanced perspective on the earth and our stewardship over it. You could manifest these ideas through characters without having to write an explicitly nature-themed story. I've been reminded of a day several years ago when I was commuting home from Salt Lake City, just coming around point of the mountain into Utah Valley. It was a lovely spring day and as I rounded that corner and looked down into the valley, it was covered in a blanket of black smog. Immediately the scripture in Mormon came to mind, describing our time as a day "when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth" (Mormon 8:31). It was sad. Since moving to Texas (where no one who has ever camped for real, i.e. in the mountains, would go camping, and where there is no hiking to speak of), I've reflected a lot on how disconnected from nature our modern lives are. We live in suburban neighborhoods and commute on freeways to work in city buildings and spend our weekends driving from shopping centers to movie theatres to ball parks. The few hours I spend out in my flower garden are as close as I get on a regular basis. Growing up, it seems like we were "up the canyon" (to quote my father) at least weekly, and I spent a lot of time observing and absorbing nature. I miss it very much. I miss the mountains--and I acknowledge that being in the mountains isn't the only way to experience and enjoy nature, just the way that I learned to do it. And I miss the time I had as a child to examine and explore and appreciate the world without regard to the hundred other things that could have seemed more important at the time. This disconnection must certainly help to explain the relative lack of nature writing by Mormons (and anyone else for that matter). Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:17:34 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] LDS Nature Writing Jonathan, You said, > I suspect that for every Terry Tempest Williams who attempts to take a > strongly environmental stance within an LDS context, there are 10--or > 20--or 100--people who leave the Church, either literally or emotionally, > over environmental issues. Without anything more than anecdotal evidence, > I think this may be a much larger area of intellectual dissonance for > members (especially young members) than discrepancies in Church > history, of > which we've talked so much. I am surprised that this has been such a widespread point of dissonance that so many might be leaving the church because of it. I would be interested to know more about this and to hear some of your anecdotal evidence. Gae Lyn Henderson> - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:17:27 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Nature Writing Along those lines, I have a friend who thinks any kind of recycling, conservation, reducing, reusing....is silly because we are taught that there is enough and to spare. Tracie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:26:20 +0200 From: "Ryan Orrock" Subject: Re:[AML] Money and Art Eric Samuelson said in part, "But if we agree that supporting arts and = culture is a worthwhile government activity (which the vast majority of = Americans do) ... ".=20 Do they? Even so, if the vast majority of Americans considered marriage = "pointless" or religion "useless", it still would not make them so. If the government takes, by force, money from your pocket to support = art, isn't it saying, "Either you classless boneheads aren't going to = spend any money on art (which is important, and should have money spent = on it), or you are going to spend it in the wrong place (namely what you = like instead of what is good)?" So what the goverment ends up doing with this is taking the dollars that = you might have spent on art (or food, utitities, or anything else I = suppose . . . ) and decides for you where it will be spent. Now, you = have less dollars to support the artists, musicians, and writers that = you like (or buy food, clothe your children, etc.), and the government = makes a decision to support some art with this money that you might not = like. So if you have trouble supporting yourself as an artist, writer, = or musician, you can at least partially blame that on the money coming = out of the wallets of your potential patrons which is spent on art which = they do not enjoy or appreciate. As a consumer, you do not have as much = money=3Dpower to support and benefit from the art forms which you = appreciate (or buy food, clothing, etc.). This is not to say that there are a lot of wonderful projects which can = and do get supported through the NEA, but based upon the current debt = level of our nation, and the responsibility with which national = politicians treat the money which is entrusted to their care, I would = rather spend my money to support the art, literature, and music which I = prefer - or maybe even buy food and pay my rent with it. Ryan Orrock - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:10:13 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] LA Festival of Books Does anyone know if there will be LDS publishers or authors at the Los = Angeles Festival of Books? Jana Remy Irvine, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:38:23 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Gen. Conference barbara hume wrote: "A sacrament meeting speaker in my ward made an interesting point. He=20 compared Conference to King Benjamin's speech. After the king talked, = the=20 people who heard or read his messages changed their ways (basically, the = whole population) and became good. After Conference. . . . . Well, what did you do after Conference?" I have a terrible time staying awake in any meeting not just conference = (Stake and General). On my mission I started taking notes so I could = stay awake. I must have a hundred or more notebooks lying around with = notes from various meetings I've attended. I also go back afterwards and = look over the talks in the Ensign as well as my notes to see what really = struck me (I also listen to them on CD). For some reason I have been = struck with the powerful impression that the last several conferences = seem to be directed more toward preparing us spiritually and personally = for what is to come. By that I mean the re-establishment of Zion like in = the days of the prophet Enoch. As much as our forefathers would have = liked to have established a Zion Society in the time of Joseph Smith I = think there were too many who were in it for what they could get or who = wanted to be held up as examples of righteousness and one of those who = did it (established Zion) and were not interested in the "Big Picture". = Well the day is swift approaching when we as families and individuals = will be called to create or become Zion BEFORE the City is built back in = Missouri. I know I have a long way to go. How about the rest of us? When = the Conference Reports arrive think about this and see if the messages = do not take on a new meaning. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:12:08 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > This is an issue that is of enormous importance. With all > due respect to Kathy Tyner, I must take issue with her on this issue. I'll call your take and raise you one. Um. Or something to that effect :). Actually, I am kind of in the middle on this one (I'm sure much to everyone's surprise) and I'll try to explain why that is. > Yes. Absolutely. Taxpayers are just dead wrong to complain > about the NEA, and especially specific avant-garde artists > who receive grants. > > The fact is, everyone's artistic tastes differ. But if we > agree that supporting arts and culture is a worthwhile > government activiity (which the vast majority of Americans > do) then we absolutely must agree to a hands-off attitude > towards the expenditure of public money for cultural > purposes. Absolutely fundamental principles of freedom of > expression are at risk. Support for the arts has to be . . . > I almost said 'unqualified', but of course, that's > impossible. Resources are limited, and some discretion must > be used; decisions must be made about who receives help and > who doesn't, and there must be some criteria for making such > decisions. But care must be taken that that decision-making > process is generally non-ideological. In short, such is the > nature of art, that we should expect, anticipate and applaud > art works that receive support that we find personally > offensive. If the NEA does not support works of art that bug > the heck out of me, I don't think the NEA is doing its job. > Otherwise, we'll be supporting bland, politically correct, > inoffensive works of art, and that becomes the culture of our nation. Now, I'm not a big fan of anything government sponsored no matter how worthy. I don't much like that government takes our money essentially at the point of a gun (or at least, with the threat of imprisonment and confiscation of property) and then spends it so frivolously. The action of taxation should inspire a great deal of respect, responsibility, and reflection when it comes time to spend funds so forcefully taken. I'm not a taxation absolutist, mind--there *are* legitimate needs that can only be met by forced compliance. I just don't like how casually tax funds are spent in our current system and I think art sponsorship is one area that deserves a *much* more vigorous debate and discussion so that adequate principles can be explored. I mean, I don't want bland, politically-correct art any more than the next guy and I think that artists have a legitimate function in pushing and testing cultural boundaries. The problem that I have with current art trends is that the boundaries have been pushed back too far and it is time to rein in some of those who call themselves artists. There are legitimate boundaries that require our active defense and that includes yanking the funding for "art" projects that violate them. Some of the blood and body expositions (on-stage piercings and mutilations) have no place in a civilized society, for example, and NEA funding has no place there no matter how small a percentage of the whole it represents. That said, I think that the problem with the abuses in modern art don't lie with the artists so much as they lie with the system of support for artists. Our culture has abdicated too many borders, fallen back too far, and those borders need to be re-established with real consequences behind them. Not that I have any power or even inclination to determine what those borders should be. I'm just convinced that blood expositions and potty art have definitely crossed the line enough to warrant repercussion. At the very least, those funding and promoting blood expositions should be ostracized in a real and financial way. Oh, sorry, we don't call that ostracism anymore, it's a boycott. Whatever. They should find themselves with few friends and no financial resources to continue their perversion. Judgement *must* be exercised at some level if only because we can't afford to fund *everything* anybody can conceive and call art. And let's not forget that you can't *not* have an art establishment however much you might defend "artistic freedom." A lot of the objectionable exhibitions that we hear about from outraged media and interest groups have a common source and background (generally the New York artist community and certain very specific museum directors and/or producers). I don't think that New York elites have any better right to influence art than Joe Cattle Rancher does, particularly when they're playing with OPM (Other People's Money) while they do it. > Right now, government funding for the arts is considered a > highly questionable proposition, and the only works that > receive support tend to be symphony orchestras and children's > museums and similar works about which there is a broad > consensus of support. The reality is, though, that many art > forms are valuable, but not cost effective. The USA spends a > hundredth of what it should to support the arts, very much to > our nation's cultural loss. But then, what's the value of a "rich" culture if thought, evaluation and comparison have to be abandoned to enrich it? What value *is* there of a rich culture? What kind of return can we expect for our hard-won dollars that you wish to spend so lavishly on people who claim to be artists? Taxes are a heavy burden economically and emotionally. The cost of government on my small business is enormous already and you seem to think it should be higher still. What good is a rich culture if I can't support my three employees? What trade-offs are you willing to accept in order to fund your arts at the levels you aspire to? Personally, if Europe is an example of cultural richness, then I have to say that I'm not terribly impressed and I'd find it pretty galling to have to close my business so that we can more closely ape the French. > The British National Theatre, in London, could not succeed > without a hefty subsidy from the government. It's the > greatest theatre company in the world, and their tickets are > affordable to even the most modest income families. And they > regularly do works that are political in nature, and that > savage the government which is supporting them. (I saw the > most ferocious anti-Tony Blair piece just last summer at the > National). What a wonderfully healthy situation! And > British culture would be outraged if, as a result, the > National got its budget cut. We can and should have the same > robust, healthy self-confidence. Why is national funding of political discourse/art any healthier than private funding of same? We have plenty of political dissent here in the US without having to go to our theaters to get it. What does a healthy theatrical industry provide that would justify the kind of taxes needed to support it? Britain's economy, one of the strongest in Europe, creaks under the pressure of supporting their government spending. A good deal of Britain's strength is due to the close ties of the US and the power they receive through those ties. A good percentage of the world relies on the innovation coming out of the "culturally stinted" (if I may paraphrase what I perceive is your evaluation of US culture) United States. The US invented 5 of the top 10 most important drugs in the world today and the US produced *all* of the three most widely used medical drugs that are right now saving and extending lives. Further, the US bears the *entire* cost of research and development for those drugs because other countries have price controls such that pharmaceutical companies can only make a small amount above the cost of actual *production* in foreign countries (and, BTW, we support the R&D of *all* drug companies, even those researching drugs in other countries). What I'm saying, I guess, is that if you sap money away from private use, that means the money comes from places it would otherwise go. Just because the individual cost is small and widely distributed (and thus, impossible to calculate) doesn't mean that it doesn't add up to a *lot* in aggregate. Even 5 cents per citizen adds up to lost jobs and missed opportunities even if we can't point to the specific jobs lost or opportunities missed. So what is it you are willing to give up to fund a healthy theater? What if that funding means that we don't ever discover a cure for Alzheimer's? I'm not sure that a great culture is worth the price of funding it by the inefficient means of government spending. > >My general impression of it all is they want the money, > >but if a taxpayer has any objections to what kind of > >art the money is paying for, they get told they're > >uneducated peasants who don't appreciate real talent > >and you're attempting to censor the arts. > > I've never actually heard this particular kind of rhetoric. > Remember that the NEA has substantial majority support among > taxpayers. Fact is, we don't have a clue RIGHT NOW which > works of art will be seen, in the future, to have lasting merit. So what do you suggest? Should we really fund everyone who thinks they produce art, just because they claim to produce art? That's a recipe for abuse if ever there was one. How much fraud and abuse are you willing to support just so that we don't miss out on something *potentially* great. > Rich society patrons give money to > the arts, but insist on conditions and requirements that many > artists (possibly the most important ones) reject. How much do you want to spend on a "possibly"? What kind of payoff can we legitimately look for? Three of four artists funded rise to prominence? One in three? One in one hundred? How many sadistic wastrels will we have to wade through to get to someone with talent and vision? And what have we missed, really, if we actually pass over one of the most important artists because we are so stingy? Not to mention, what might we gain if an artist is forced to learn humility and compromise to produce their vision? I pity anybody with the talent of, say, Shakespeare, who has to learn his craft in our day and age. There are few boundaries to provide opposition (and thus strength), few rules to test and try, little external direction to guide and inspire. I wonder if Shakespeare would have been as great if he hadn't had to toe a fine line with Royalty and bureaucrats. Would his poetry be as inspired without the (strict) constraints of the sonnet? What would he have done with the NEA grant proposal process? I don't really know, but I suspect that without the foils of the culture surrounding him, Shakespeare might not have been quite so good as he is. Just as I don't believe Gadianton (are you tired of me referring to this play yet?) would have been as good had you followed your first tendency to make Ward an obvious bad guy. > Of course no one has any idea what sorts of art will be > prevelant during the millennium. I do think that the > avant-garde has painted itself into something of a corner > nowadays. I, for one, am anxious to see what comes next. We > won't see it at all, though, if the NEA (or something like > it) ceases to exist. I, too, am anxious to see what comes next, but unless we discover (and support) some boundaries, what comes next will likely be only more debauched and depraved than we have already seen. It is time for artists to come out of their narcissistic cocoons and reconnect with the rest of us. Now is not the time for them to be more independent than ever before--quite the opposite. How can they communicate with us when they are so removed and shut off? How can we learn from them if their art is so rarified that none can understand them? Your proposals about the NEA would further this disconnect, IMO, and lead to increasing the already too-wide gulf between artists and their community. And it would remove one of the very best communication methods invented in modern times--the free-market flow of money. It is money that reveals the disconnect between people who *say* they'd like a healthy hamburger (7 in 10) and those who *actually* want one (pretty much 0 in 10). Artists right now have little way to tell if they are communicating their vision or not--little way to know if those they consult *really* want the next staged blood-bath, or whether they'd connect better to another production of Bash. It probably sounds like I want to abolish the NEA and that I didn't really mean that I'm somewhere in the middle on this. That's only because I'm responding here to Eric. I actually don't mind the NEA too much, but I *do* support forcing them to create explicit guidelines and declare the principles they intend to use in their funding. I don't like the decision process right now because it is so fraught with whim and fancy and has so little oversight. I suppose that I am a reformist, not an abolitionist. At least, in regards to public funding of the arts. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #684 ******************************