From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #698 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, May 2 2002 Volume 01 : Number 698 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:52:59 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art >Just a thought. Perhaps if government-subsidized theater didn't exist, >the private theaters wouldn't have such a thinned-out audience to fight >for and could attract a larger crowd. Sure doesn't look like it in the UK, where private theatres thrive and = proliferate like, I don't know, some appropriate image suggesting = fecundity. =20 What the National and RSC do, in England, is create an appetite for the = art form. People in the United States aren't in the habit of going to the = theatre. When most folks think of theatre, they think of "that awful = musical I had to go to in high school," or "$150 tickets for Les Mis." = They don't think of "something enjoyable to take the family to a couple = times a month." =20 That's what the National and RSC do. They make it possible for people to = see the best theatre in the world at affordable prices, so that folks get = in the habit of theatre attendance on a regular basis. A rising tide, in = this case, really does lift all the ships. In this country, there's very much a Catch-22 regarding the arts. The = arts are seen as elitist and expensive and probably sort of untrustworthy. = So people don't support even reasonable amounts of government funding for = the arts. And so, the arts become, well, pretty elitist and they stay = pretty expensive. And so on. =20 I know this is a hard sell, especially within free market loving Mormons. = Believe me, I'm politically left, but I love the free market. I sing the = song of America, in all its polyester glory. I love used car salesmen (is = there an activity in the world more flat out enjoyable than buying a used = car?), telemarketers, personal injury attorneys, time share condo = salesmen. As I've said before, I love the name of our country. United = States (a state is, by definition, sovereign), of America (supersalesman = Amerigo Vespucci, con man and self promoter; I love invoking him). I'm = not kidding, I really like all this stuff. I love street vendors. I = adore tacky promotions. I think it's all good. Public funding for art is = not incompatible with democratic and market oriented ideals. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:27:18 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art bob/bernice hughes wrote: > A lot of the money in both > the NEA and NEH (Humanities) is given out in block grants to local > communities or organizations to decide what to do with the funds. For > example, the NEA gives a large block grant to the Utah Arts Council to > decide what to do with the funds. Why do we have to funnel the money through Washington, then have it block-granted back to us? I can't help but wonder how big the bite in overhead is that we lose with every dollar that way. There's really only one reason: local government doesn't want to have to tax for such things. So they let the Feds do the dirty work, then beg the Feds for the money. Politically easier, but cowardly and stupid. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:27:43 -0600 From: "Tyler Moulton" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Mary Jane Jones said, >>>I think that a bigger part of the reason why the arts flourish more in = small western European towns has . . . more to do with the overall = attitudes of the general population towards art. . . . <<< Just a funny anecdote: Several years ago my family was visiting Insbruck. We were strolling down = the sidewalk enjoying the sunshine and the architecture when we began to = sense the vibrations of a pounding bass coming from the internal speakers = of an approaching car. The intrusion of what I took to be rap music on = that setting was startling. But as the car got closer and we could pick = out the higher notes, we realized that this teenager was doing permanent = damage to his ears with polka music. We haven't stopped laughing. Tyler [whose wife, Heather, just had a beautiful and healthy baby girl, = whom we will name Elizabeth Hope.] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 10:47:21 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Robert, thanks for these good comments. Yes, you're quite right in that this book does nothing to advance the deep understandings of God as taught in Mormonism. But then again, having read the introduction and the approving note by Orrin Hatch, I really didn't expect this. I had the following expectation: that Johanson would produce what is essentially a PR job, presenting Mormonism as just another Christian religion (so to speak), and not raise many difficult issues. My statement that he has a fair grasp of Mormonism is intended to mean that he understands what the Church wants to project as its public image. I think he has this down pat. Some may argue that the deeper things of the gospel are not appropriate for a book such as this. I have a skewed view of all this, and a general dislike for such watered-down attempts to introduce Mormonism. But that's just me. Thanks for the nice note. [Jeff Needle] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:46:55 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Environmentalism Todd Petersen said: "It seems like LDS people just want to write about their religion in a way that won't offend other LDS people." I must take issue with this statement. I know many LDS people that not only want to but _do_ write about their religion in a way that will and does offend other LDS people. These works, however, are not widely known, not because they are not excellent, lots are, but because LDS publishers do not want to publish books that will offend LDS people and National publishers are not interested in publishing LDS works at all. So, if the LDS publishers are correct in their marketing strategies, LDS people don't want to be offended by the books they read; and to put a cynical spin on it, neither do LDS people wish to be presented with thinking that is outside their comfort zone.=20 - -Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:20:25 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art I stand corrected. I guess I still have problems adjusting the this strange American way of thinking--it's only been 27 years since I left Argentina. There are little details about life in Argentina that pop up every now and then, and I ended up getting a civics lesson. The last one happen in my son's second grade class. The father of one of the other kids showed up in fatigues. You could tell from his patches he was regular Army. He wasn't armed, but I freaked. Later I found out he was there to pick up his son--not to purge society. One of the great big possitives I noticed about American culture when I returned to the United States was the complete lack of involvement of the military in domestic politics and in domestic society. I think that's in the constitution. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 12:22:27 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Thom asked about how people (at the Beet) get paid. We "pay" them in exposure to 40,000 readers and publicity in the SL TRib and newspapers all over the country. That's better than a few bucks, don't you think? I guess we pay people in fame. It was lucky fame, but fame of a kind nonetheless. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:22:11 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? ___ Linda ___ | However, with the other issues you cite, you boil down romantic | love, attraction, and romance to its basic component: the hope | for eventual sex. Isn't this true of not just Disney, but life | in general? ___ Allow me to make a similar point, but with a difference focus. The distinction we make between "romance" and "sex" is really a false one. The drives which lead us to romance are sexual. The reason we distinguish between sex and romance is because we have a sphere of proscribed behavior. Our discussion of "sex" arises because of that prohibition. Yet the same *drives* occur in both. Humans are very complicated beings. We can talk about "players" who go from relationship to relationship on a superficial level only caring about "sex." Yet there are also people who go from relationship to relationship looking for meaning. The sex is empty because it lacks the true romance. But by calling the sex empty we recognize that sex as sex has *more* than this simple sexuality of the world. Empty sex recognizes a part of sex that is missing in these kinds of relationships. Thus the recognition of empty sex is the recognition that sex and romance are intertwined. And the same sort of investigation can go the other way. Romance without sexuality is nothing more than friendship. Something is missing. I have many women I am friends with. Yet without that certain inexpressible drive behind the friendship, something is missing. Further that drive comes from someplace else and is a passion that keeps a relationship lasting much longer than a friendly relationship. In the church we are right to focus on the boundary that inscribes a limit on sexuality. Further I think that such a notion is part and parcel of how we both read and write literature. (As this thread shows) Yet at the same time I think that saying that this line is the line between sex and romance is incorrect. Indeed it is somewhat worse than incorrect if it causes our basic drive and passion to be hidden. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:25:20 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Disney Morals? ___ Jacob ___ | Toy Story is a stellar example. Someone else mentioned that | there was a romantic sub-plot in Monsters, Inc. but I think | that's Eric's *point*. It was a *sub*-plot. Disney | seems incapable of telling a story that isn't motivated from | start to finish by infatuation with an attractive form. ___ That was me. But I also pointed out that Pixar's other film, _A Bug's Life_ had a strong romantic plot. Disney's problem is that it has a "formula" and that formula is in part the romantic formula of the classic fairy tale. In the classic fairy tale the romance is pretty prominent. It is, unfortunately often a tad sexist. The woman is the boon for the hero. (A pattern that goes back to ancient myths) At least Disney has tried to update that view with stronger female leads. However by and large it stick with what worked earlier. This entails that when they tell other stories, they tell them in the context of that basic pattern. That means, for instance, that most of the films will have a few songs, a couple of "humorous" side-kicks, and so forth. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:56:20 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report April 26--Correction Corrections In the Weekly Box Office Report sent out yesterday, the figures shown for "The Singles Ward" are actually that film's figures from the previous week. The latest "Singles Ward" box office figures (for the weekend of April 26) are not yet available. Also, in the Box Office Report sent out one week ago, it was stated that Crusader Entertainment, the production company that made the new feature film "Joshua" is predominantly Catholic. This is incorrect. The author of the original book is Catholic, as are many of the characters in the book/film, and some central events take place at the Vatican. But the producer who bought the film rights and made the film is a Presbyterian minister. It could also be pointed out that the book and film are certainly pro-Christianity, but they are not slanted toward any specific denomination, including the Catholic Church. The book, in fact, "rants against the Catholic bureaucracy and calls for reform" (says the Los Angeles Times) -- something that has largely been dropped from the movie. - -- LDSFilm.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:58:58 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Talent Search: Actor for Joseph Smith [This press release indicates that the Church is in the process of creating a major film featuring Joseph Smith -- a projec distinct from Dutcher's independent "The Prophet".] Talent Search for Principle Actor to portray the Prophet Joseph Smith Date: 8 April 2002 From: Alisa F. Anglesey, Casting Director Audiovisual Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints PURPOSE We are conducting a nation-wide search for an actor to portray the Prophet Joseph Smith in an upcoming feature film produced for specialized theatres throughout the world. WHEN & WHERE Please send appropriate r=e9sum=e9s and headshots, postmarked no later than April 26, 2002, to: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Attn: Alisa Anglesey Audiovisual Casting =97 21st Floor 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 AUDITIONS will be scheduled through your agency based upon careful consideration of each actor's r=e9sum=e9. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Height: at least 6'1" or taller Build: Muscular Complexion: Fair Facial shape: Oblong w/a prominent nose CHARACTER & PERSONALITY Charismatic, Positive, Intelligent, Approachable, Cheerful, Loves Children, Loves People; Others also love being around him. The actor chosen to portray this role must be of high moral character in his personal life as well as on screen. Preference will be given to members of the LDS faith, although membership is not a prerequisite for the role. Actors auditioning for this role should be affable toward the Church and not opposed to portraying this highly revered historical character with honor and dignity. Thank you for your assistance! Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Alisa Anglesey E-mail: angleseyaf@ldschurch.org - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 12:31:48 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art [MOD: On the political aspects of this posts, see my forthcoming moderator message.] This has been a great thread and I appreciate Jonathan's patience in letting it go on as the tie to Mormon letters is somewhat tenuous, but one that needs to be discussed. I have learned a lot. The reason many people have gripes about the NEA in particular is because not too many years ago they were not sending much in the way of funding to children's programs and art that would be considered "traditional". There were activists who didn't like this and they took to the airwaves and other grassroots acitivist activities and made people aware of this. And people spoke up and let their representatives know how they felt about it. Something that should take place in a representative republic. However, the press and other entities did not try and remain neutral or express admiration for the awakening of such activism, no the people expressing their displeasure with such happenings were labeled as religious zealots trying to force their beliefs on others and censor art and speech! Or maybe just ignorant, unwashed, uncultured peasants who just didn't understand what art, especially the avant garde, was all about. Because you see, all activism is supposedly equal, but some is more equal than others. So if people raising their voice has changed things with the NEA, that's all for the better IMHO, it's is not the government's money, it is the people's and they have every right, nay obligation to have a say so in how it's spent. Especially since it's taken from them at the point of a gun, because you don't mess with the IRS. It's also disguised in such forms as fees and charges that are deliberately made confusing so most people won't know what's going on. There is no provision in the constitution for such expenditures, it ain't there. And don't tell me that our constitution is a living, breathing document-it's boundaries are set and there is a set of guidelines for changing things in it. It is supposed to take place by the legislative process and not by judicial fiat or executive branch decision. National security is a set provision in the constitution one that benefits even pacifists and allows them the safety of their pacifism in a free country. All that being said, do I object to some funding of the arts? My libertarian side is bothered, but I believe it can be to the public good and the genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago. I would like it if we could somewhat wean ourselves from such dependence and find better ways of doing the funding , especially privately. I would rather such funding largely take place on the state and local levels where there can be more control and say so by the public and where they would see and experience the benefits of the arts their largess has helped to fund and witness the growth of local artists they have helped. I don't think most people have a problem with encouraging the arts, I think the problem that arises is one of attitude. People object to hubris and arrogant attitudes. The attitude of " I am an artist and I deserve your money, and if I turn around and call you verbally or through my art an imperialist pig or express a belief that all religious people, especially conservatives are dangerous, evil freaks then who are you to object, how dare you!" It smacks of a teenager telling you how much us adults have done to destroy the planet and by the way, can I have the car? Artists would go a long way further in help from the public if they actually were grateful for the help they receive and publicly, loudly expressed it. Is it possible to be an artist of any sort and have humility? Hmmm, good question. As far as Harlow's question about the public funding of stadiums, I am strongly against such funding, I think it's a complete rip-off. Team owners can figure out a way to raise money themselves and not have the public pay for luxury boxes they will never get to enjoy themselves. I am not against tax breaks to encourage businesses and teams locating to a certain locale, the idea being by bringing in the business the revenue generated will bring in that money another way into goverment coffers, but it sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I do not mind bonds because I get to exercise my franchise and vote on them and choose whether I will help add to the debt load of the public purse. I usually will vote yes on library bonds and pick and choose on the necessity of other kinds. But, I am convined that there is an incredible amount of waste and fraud that goes on in many government entities, and that if we can get those rascals to let citizen's panels in to crack open the accounting books and go after some of the ridiculous things the money gets spent on with our red pencils, we'd probably find more money that we could believe. As far as a connection to Mormon letters I think these issues could be addressed with the personal essay. I believe Eugene England strongly encouraged LDS writers to express themselves in this genre. Much of the LDS writing in the political/social arena tends to have viewpoints strongly to the right or the left and as we've seen from the posts on this thread there are strong feelings, but a lot of room for different ideas. Now is a good time to start thinking about turning out pieces in this area, what are we waiting for? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 15:11:21 -0700 From: "Tait Family" Subject: [AML] re: Virginia SORENSON With your indulgence, I'd like to share a couple of stories that relate to the discussion on Virginia Sorenson. My grandmother, Wanda Snow Petersen, became good friends with Virginia when they were both students at BYU and they kept in touch over the years. Grandma was something of a writer herself--active in the League of Utah Writers and Penwomen (president of one or both at times, I believe). She has written several books about our family history, including a wonderful autobiography entitled "My Second Estate" (which I'm sure many other Mormons have used for their memoirs). When that book was finished in about 1980, she sent a copy to Virginia, and she received a letter in return saying something to the effect of "I wish I had had what you have [i.e. a testimony of the gospel] in my life." I apologize that I can't remember more details of what Grandma has told me so many times, but I have not heard the story in a few years. She knew Virginia and her first husband, Fred Sorenson, both when they were married and after. Her opinion is that Virginia was never truly "converted" to the gospel. She has also said that she felt Virginia's success as a writer was a factor in her divorce from Fred because he felt inferior in comparison. I don't know for sure if these things are true, but I repeat them because they are part of how Grandma always portrayed this woman she considered a dear friend, speaking of her as a kind, wonderful person who had some difficult experiences in life. Another story she tells is of taking Virginia home with her one spring on a break from BYU (I believe Virginia had likewise invited Grandma to her family's home, which at that time was in Springville). The Snows owned a general store in the little, backward town of Wellington (near Price in Carbon County), and she and her parents lived in rooms above the store. (Grandma was the youngest of 10 and all the others were married by this time.) She said that she could tell that Virginia was quite taken aback by the simple, modest home (in comparison to her family's relatively more affluent position) but was gracious and careful not to mention it. It was the first time, Grandma says, that she thought of herself as coming from a poor background, but she appreciated her friend's effort not to notice and to get acquainted with her parents. I hope that Grandma has kept all her letters from Virginia, however many there may be. I intend to find out when we go home for a visit this summer, and if necessary I will take steps to preserve them. I have heard that someone is writing a biography of Virginia Sorenson. Does anyone know who? Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 16:47:01 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Box Office Report April 26 I'd like to extend a special thanks to Preston for keeping us all updated on Mormons in film. Just a little correction, though, on casting for "The Prophet." Canadian actor Duff MacDonald is not playing Robert Foster. He has been cast, but he's playing a different role. Beware of any casting "news" until you hear it from me. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 15:39:28 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants We have long felt that these grants are heavily weighted toward Salt Lake writers and artists. I know we (meaning my husband and I) have applied off and on for years for various things and never gotten anything. You might conclude that we are submitting proposals for worthless projects :), but just in case they were worth something, we might also conclude that we in the netherlands don't get that much attention. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:22:54 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists ROY SCHMIDT wrote: > Re: Russian novels. I really enjoy the writings of Stuart Kamanski. > Does anyone else on the list read him? I've been sitting on this post since long after the thread has died out, but if Roy is still out there, I must chip in with a big yes, I enjoy Kaminsky a great deal, though he's only Russian by descent. He lives in Sarasota, FL and is purely American. SK has several series going in the detective/mystery genre. His most successful are the Toby Peters series. Peters is a private eye out in Hollywood in the 30's and 40's and his clients are the stars of the times like Fred Astaire or Clark Goble. Their problems that Peters helps to solves incorporate their screen persona--like Astaire has some murder mystery that revolves around a gangster's wife who wants dance lessons. Kaminsky's Russian detective (I think it's Rostnikov) has a more somber life, in Moscow dealing with politburo forces. These novels are more thoughtful, the prose is spare and sometimes even lyrical. But there's another mystery writer that I'd like to recommend, Martha Grimes. I've only read her novel, Paradise Inn and its sequel, Cold Flat Junction, but both are moving and simply wonderfully written. I have to plow through a lot of terrible writing as I grade papers and plow through scholarly journals, so it's a relief when I come across a writer with something worthwhile to say and has a gift for language. I've come to the point when I don't finish books that don't have some indication of maturity, solid craftsmanship, and something of substance in the brain that writes them. I've become quite snobbish and selective as to what novels I read. For instance, the several and respected list members who recommended The Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. I found it to be smarmy and entirely too amused by its own cleverness. The little pun games were obvious and childish. I put it down after 2-3 hours. I think a great deal of this has to do with being LDS. We know more about what is important than most others. Even the most shallow, cultural Mormon has an understanding of humanity's purpose and The Grand Scheme Of Things that far exceeds them others. And that's a big hurdle. Why should I devote time and energy to someone who has very little to offer me in the way of insight? Anyway, when I was reading Martha Grimes, I kept thinking how much Barbara Hume would enjoy her books. [Tony Markham] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 17:36:07 +0000 From: Kellene Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Since I've gotten grant money myself for a decidedly > Mormon project, and since I teach at BYU, I know that the money doesn't go > just to U of U. Lance Larsen has also gotten grant money, though I don't > know what his particular project was other than poetry. I wonder if there's > a difference when individual artists apply for grant money and when a group > such as the AML applies. > [Margaret Young] Is there somewhere that individual artists can go to find out what grant monies are available? I've got a few projects I've been working on that I've wondered about grant money before, but I've never even known where to begin to look to see what was even out there. Kellene Ricks Adams > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 16:03:56 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Utah Arts Grants Either the Utah Arts Council or the Utah Humanities Council (can't remember which one--probably UAC) told me point blank on the phone that the AML didn't get funding for Irreantum because of concerns about separation between church and state, since it's government money. That was 2-3 years ago. I called back the UAC this year and asked point blank if we should bother applying again this year, and the grant coordinator said the panels change every year and it wouldn't hurt to try again. So I did, and I played us up as a cultural group with nonmembers and excommunicants on the board as well as practicing Mormons (now, with Neila Seshachari's passing, we can no longer make the nonmember claim--but Lavina Fielding Anderson is still our AML Annual editor). They are deciding on May 28. The panel members making the grant decisions this year include the following. I've made a few annotations--anyone know anything more? Barry Scholl, 2615 Rowland Dr, Salt Lake City, UT 84124-2921 [Wasn't he editor of Salt Lake magazine or some other local periodical?] William Strong, 947 Sumac Dr, Logan, UT 84321 Ellen Meloy, PO Box 311, Bluff, UT 84512 Andrea Malouf, 2323 E Bryan Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 [Another Salt Lake magazine person, I'm pretty sure.] Janet Lowe, PO Box 47, Moab, UT 84532 Danielle Dubrasky, 225 S 100 W, Cedar City, UT 84720 Lance Larsen, 3077 JKHB, BYU, Provo, UT 84602 [An LDS poet] Greta deJong, 362 E Broadway, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Fay Cope, PO Box 215, Springdale, UT 84767 Kenneth W Brewer, 651 Canyon Rd, Logan, UT 84321 Lisa Bickmore, 3303 W 7675 S, West Jordan, UT 84084-3660 Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:55:12 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art [MOD: See my forthcoming moderator note on this thread.] Scott Parkin responded to my (Rob Lauer's) earlier post on government support of arts. Below are some of his points and my replies.(I am in a big rush and don't have time to re-read, so please forgive the typos.) SCOTT PARKIN: >I'm not sure that anyone is forced to support any particular idea when tax >dollars are used to fund the expression of that idea--any more than my >consumer dollar spent on Kraft macaroni and cheese is an explicit >endorsement and establishment of Phillip Morris Company's alcohol or >tobacco >products. I pay for mac and cheese; I support mac and cheese. If part of my >mac and cheese money helps make a cigarette, I can only assume that part of >their Pall Mall dollar is funding my cheesy mealtime delight. ROB. LAUER: But there is a BIG difference. "Tax dollars" and "Consumer dollars" are two different things. "Consumer dollars" are given VOLUNTARILY by the consumer in exchange for a product; "Tax dollars" are taken by the government under the threat of physical force (arrest, jail, etc.). You have a correct idea how business works: if you buy mac and cheese from a company that you know makes cigarettes,you are in essence saying that you value the mac and cheese enough to overlook the cigarette. The tax payer is given no such choice. His only option is either to move to another conutry or not pay the tax and go to jail. SCOTT: >I suppose the dollar funds the whole company and the production of products >I have no interest in. It also funds the production of the product I do >have >interest in--just as the NEA or any other tax-funded organzation supports >the expression of both ideas I agree with and ones I don't. ROB.: But no where does the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) give the Government the right to fund ANY IDEAS whatsoever except the concept of indivdual rights which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. SCOTT: >I see a tremendous amount of morality in supporting the expression of ideas >with common money. It's how we ensure that the free exchange of ideas >continue--by supporting the expression of even distasteful or disagreeable >ideas. If anything, I almost see it as a moral imperative to specifically >fund the expression of unpopular ideas to ensure that we are always given >choices and hear arguments for other ways of thinking. ROB.: I have to disagree with every single point you made. "Common money" is tax money--money taken by force from the "common people." The Constitution's morality asserts that there must be freedom of expression and that the Government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. If government sponsored art endorses a religious idea or condemns a religious idea, then the Constitution is being violated. If someone, due to their religion, is opposed to art (and many religions have been opposed to such things as grahpic representations, fiction and drama) then the Government in funding the arts is forcing a person to violate their religious convictions through taxes. It is not the Government's job to see that ANY ideas are expressed--popular or not; the Government has the moral authroity only to allow the CITIZENS to voice their ideas. To say that the Government has a moral imperative to fund unpopular ideas, then, on this same principle, one must say that the Government has a moral imperative to fund unpopular religions and political parties. And if there is a moral imperatve to fund UNPOPULAR IDEAS, then what about a moral imperative to fund POPULAR indeas. Can you have one without the other? What is the principle upon which such an case can be made? In fact, when the Government funds ANY ideas, it is, by the very act, censoring other ideas; for it is deciding which ideas have merit and which do not. Government funding of the arts is, in effect, a censoring of art (the art that the government has rejected for funding.) The Consitution, in protecting individual freedom, sets up a situation in which an individual is free to become an artist or not; create artistis works, or not; speak out on art, or not; purchase art, or not. SCOTT: I see it as my moral imperative to ensure that the majority is not given the >power to quash the ideas of minorities--like Mormons or women or blacks. ROB.: But the INDIVIDUALS in the majority (whatever their racial, religious or gender makeup)have the right to ignore these ideas, reject these ideas, etc. There is no moral justification for FORCING them (through taxation) to support ideas with which they disagree. As long as individuals in minorities have the right to speak or pursue a certain career, then all is well; but no person or entity has the moral authority to ENSURE that the ideas or pursuits of these individuals WILL SUCCEED. Success in any endeavour could only be ensured by denying the rights of other individuals. SCOTT: >so the use of my tax dollar to support a wide variety of expression seems >very much to be not only a good thing to do, but becomes very nearly >necessary if we are to ensure free expression of any idea--be it religious, >pragmatic, or philosophical. ROB.: I couldn't disagree more. Freedom of expression is guaranteed ONLY by having the Government GET OUT OF THE WAY OF ALL SPEECH AND EXPRESSION. In the market place of ideas, there will always be ideas that are rejected and ideas that will be bought. Sometimes (maybe often times) the better ideas will be rejected; but the inborn freedom of the individual (inborn because the mind of man is by nature free and can NEVER function under ANY form of compulsion) must be protected at all cost-- for ALL MORALITY is based upon the free exercise of agency. (As a Latter-day Saint, this is Gospel doctrine for me.) Also, there has always been and always will be opposition in ALL things (including the realm of ideas) regardless of the government's actions. Intellectual diversity is inherent in human nature; human misery is the result of those who would use FORCE to promote and persecute ideas. SCOTT: >Of course the extension of withdrawing funding to support the expression or >study of ideas is that we eliminate public funding of education as well, >since very specific ideas and morals are taught in schools--especially at >the university level. To make it worse, those darned universities then turn >around and tell me I can't attend them because I don't meet some arbitrary >entrance requirement--even though my tax dollars established them and >continue to fund them. ROB: Your last statement makes my point. SCOTT: >It just seems more morally correct to support all expression of ideas than >to support none. ROB: The individual has the moral right to support all the expression he choses to support. SCOTT: One creates choice, where it seems to me that the other >creates nothing and enables the majority to exercise tyrrany of control >over >the minority. ROB: As I stated above, diversity of ideas is inherent in humanity, and the Government has no power whatsoever to "create choice." As for the "tyranny of control over the minority," can you define your terms. WHO is the tyrant? What is the NATURE of their power? How is such power exercised? Can they FORCE someone to stop speaking? (Not giving someone a pulpit or microphone is NOT the same thing as denying them the right to speak; also, there is no right to be heard, for the very fact that people must be free NOT to listen if they so chose.) Unless this "tyranny of control over the minority consists of brute force and physical violence, then there is no real tyranny, and the word can only be understood as an inappropriate metaphor. Government funding of art is, in fact, the REAL tyranny: if I refuse to pay my nickel to fund the arts, I can be arrested. If I resist arrest, or if I attempt to escape jail when found guilty of tax evasion, I could be shot. Who then is the true tyrant. SCOTT: Since no one--political, religious, or business leader--can >force me to believe anything, I see support of expression not as a >suppression of my right to ignore silly things, but as a support of the >right of others to say silly things. Which is the cost of my right to >believe what I want. ROB: Financial compensation by the Government to an artist using tax money does not support the right of others to say silly things; it COMPENSATES others for saying silly things; it attributes a value to the silliness. The person saying the silly thing was born with the right to do so; it is part of his/her nature. The Government does not GRANT rights; HUMAN NATURE does. THERE IS NO COST FOR YOUR RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. A right purchased is, by very definition, NO RIGHT AT ALL. > SCOTT: >The prohibition is against the establishment of religion as the foundation >of law, not the support of free expression of ideas. ROB.: >From everything I've read of Jefferson, Paine and others, it most certainly is. These men knew that it was contrary to human nature for one to be compelled to think a certain way--to believe in a certain way. Both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are included in the First Ammendment because they are two aspects of the same philosophic principle. SCOTT: The right to express >unpopular ideas is precisely what allowed a group of colonists to declare >themselves independent of the rightful and established authority that had >funded their colony. The Constitution itself arose not out of some grand >sweeping unanimity of opinion, but out of the difficult collision of >sometimes completely opposite ideas. > >The protection of smaller, less populous states against the will of the >larger states was a foundational argument. ROB: You're comparing apples and oranges here. Speaking of the "will of the states" is a reference to law (the use of physical force). The arts and religion deal with ideas and speech which in and of themselves have no power other than the power of rational (or irrational) persuasion. SCOTT: So the explicit governmental >(aka, lawful) protection of unpopular ideas against the oppression of a >popular majority *is* the basis of the U.S. Constitution, in my eyes. ROB: There is a moral basis for PROTECTION of the expression by individuals of unpopular ideas; there is no moral basis for the Government's PROMOTION of these ideas or for the Government's compensation for those who voice these ideas. There is only moral justification for a FREE MARKET OF IDEAS. Should the Government get involved regulating this markert, then they have overstepped the moral authority granted by the philosophy of the First Ammendment. SCOTT: It's >not all about majority rule--the majority is every bit as much the tyrant >as >a single powerful ruler. To my mind it's at least partly about explicit >minority protection. ROB: I agree completely.The smallest minority is the individual; and this is a minority of which every human being is a member. As a member of this smallest (and greatest) minority, no one has the moral authority to FORCE me to pay to PROMOTE an idea with which I disagree. SCOTT: >There's a difficult line here between religion and philosophy and ideas. >When is an idea religious, and when is it merely an idea? Is personal >honesty the philosophical concept of "the fear of getting caught" or is it >the religious idea of "a sin against God?" Or is it simple pragmatism--loss >of trust means loss of income? ROB: The "difficult line between religion and philosophy and ideas" is difficult to define because it simply does not exist: all three are the pursuit of the human mind; all are in the realm of the conceptual and the abstract. Thus they have no power in the world other than the power of rational or irrational persuasion. SCOTT: Since most religions teach honesty, is the >idea tainted and can no longer be supported by the law designed to protect >us all from the manipulations of the dishonest? Are truth in advertising >laws really the establishment of religion--or are they the protection of >people regardless of (or perhaps even despite) religion? ROB: Honestly in the market place is NOT primarily a religious idea; it was a secular idea first. (Though in ancient times there was no distinction between the secular and the religious.) There is a completely rational basis for honesty in advertising and marketing--with no need for a belief in any god, creed or religion. Morality can be based on reason alone (thus God can fairly judge even an athiest for immoral actions and bless him for moral actions.) [Rob Lauer] _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #698 ******************************