Jon Stewart loves Barbie; should government support the arts?; learning Na’vi; more: leftover links

A true eccentric wouldn't need to consult a checklist on whether or not they're eccentric.

Then again the compulsion I feel to roll my eyes at many of those who consider themselves eccentric and yet continuously wax judgmental about actions that don't really harm anyone undoubtedly makes me eccentric to some people.

Government support for the arts seems in practice to mean arts that people wouldn't pay to see. The theatre occupied only by the one cast member's boyfriend who isn't also in the cast is all too familiar to anyone who's been on the edges of this field...

Has any government grant ever produced any art worth having? Genuine question. I haven't seen any.

Has any government grant ever produced any art worth having? Genuine question. I haven't seen any.

You can browse the website of the National Endowment for the Arts (here in the US) and see what they've funded in the past. Whether those projects meet your definition of "art worth having" is up to you. :-)

Here is a list of books that were made possible by NEA Literature Fellowships, which were subsequently made into movies, including:

Smoke Signals based on a book by Sherman Alexie

Short Cuts based on Raymond Carver short stories

The Hours by Michael Cunningham

The World According to Garp and Cider House Rules by John Irving

Clockers by Richard Price

Brokeback Mountain from a short story collection by Annie Proulx

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

...and on and on.

Pulitzer-Prizewinning books whose authors relied on NEA grants include The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Middlesex, The Corrections, The Shipping News, The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love, etc.

In the 1950's the US State Department funded a Jazz Ambassadors program that sent musicians around the world as cultural diplomats, including Dizzy Gillespie, Dave Brubeck, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, Benny Goodman, and Miles Davis. They played for millions and met with heads of state.

The NEA funds not only individual artists but also literary organizations and youth-directed programs like The Big Read and Poetry Out Loud, to encourage the next generation of readers and writers.

So, yes, I think there's a role for government to play in supporting the arts. The question that interests me is: Will government-funded artists feel beholden to the government, and be less willing to criticize it? And will government have the wisdom to let the artists say what they want, even if they're critical of government or promote views that may be seen as antithetical to the government's agenda?

On the one hand, I can see the point that some might make, that the government (i.e. the taxpayers) shouldn't involuntarily pay for something that displeases or disturbs them. On the other hand, what better way to show that you're committed to ideals like liberty and free speech (not to mention the value of art to provoke thought), than to fund even those who have critical or shocking messages without trying to suppress what they say? If government can refrain from attempting to censor art (e.g. threats to withdraw public funding from the a museum because of an "objectionable" exhibition) as well as refrain from using artists for propaganda (although were the Jazz Ambassadors propaganda? hmmm...) then I don't see why government funding for the arts can't be a good thing.

And how many of us grew up watching Seseme Street?

And if you don't mind going back far enough in time, most major classical composers had patrons whose day job was the government, such as bishops and emperors. Classical music concerts are shown on PBS, not the major networks. If it wasn't for universities and government support, classical musicans would be stuck doing almost nothing but background music for Hollywood historical pieces.