What Do I Stand For? Part 2 - The Arts
A truly great society values its artists. The Roman Empire valued its sculptures, painters, poets, and other forms of art and entertainment. It was the recreation of the people. The artists performed a valuable service and were paid for their efforts. The people grew in the exposure to such culture. It is what defined who they are and stayed as a reminder throughout history that they were more than just a ruthless empire set out to conquer all they saw.
In the UK and Canada, they truly value government sponsored support of the arts. Even the tax to provide quality television programming allows for creative expression that is not allowable on commercial stations.
The United States did try to initiate such an interest in the arts, but the bottom line here is always profit. If there is no monetary value to such a project, it is viewed as a waste of time and money. It is this sort of thinking that cuts school funding for art and music classes as well as decrease support for the National Endowment For The Arts and The Public Broadcasting System. These things are seen as a burden on taxpayers who may not always appreciate what these programmes create and therefore give no value to the nation.
The arts are a valuable thing, but the key is to realize what is art to one is not to others. Just because a handful of political paperpushers without an eye or ear for art must satisfy the status quo and reject or scoff at the value of art to society does not mean it is true. The system is set up wrong and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, but that does not mean we should not support the arts as a nation.
National Endowment For The Arts [NEA]
There is a good notion in the idea of supplying grants and loans to artists to help them get started with a project they have in mind for the good of the people. However, the way the money is distributed is wrong.
Politicians, not artists with a proven track record in their field, determine who gets the money and who does not. When it comes to giving out money, shouldn't the money go to those who have the talent and ambition to actually create something for the benefit of mankind get the money as opposed to just a crony of someone on the board looking for a handout for a project they can play at which will not really be seen by anyone?
I suggest there should be a board on the NEA of experienced painters, sculptors, writers, and other artists from different background who should interview the ones requesting the money. If an artist wants the money, they should present examples of their work and give the panel an idea of what they want to do with the money along with a detailed report on how the expenses will be used and a timeline for completion and how the work will be shown. This panel of qualified artists can determine if this is truly a person with talent who will use the money for the purpose it was meant. A peer to peer panel is much better than politicians who cater to the whims of whomever put them in the job as to what is a worthy project.
Anyone given a grant by the NEA should then be required to sign a contract that if, as a result of the work accomplished by the grant brings in an income of 5 times the value of the grant, he or she should pay back 10% of future earnings into the NEA to help fund new artists who need the help. Such profitable artists can then deduct this contribution from their income for tax purposes. It at least serves as a way to repay the system that brought to them success as well as fund a system that will not overburden taxpayers.
PBS And NPR
With PBS and NPR, it proves troubling to keep many local stations to keep up with expenses. They must continually have drives to raise money from local listeners in order to stay in business so they can provide content that is informational, entertaining, and different from the mainstream media. It may not seem like a popular idea among those of us who do appreciate such things, but perhaps it is time for them to go commercial or to explore other options such as charging extra for cable and satellite access or developing a premium station where one can only access by paying an extra fee or with NPR using a pay service for those who want to reach them through satellite radio.
The idea of PBS and NPR was more financially feasible before the access of satellite and cable. Today, there are just so many different choices for people in the US that both tend to not seem as appealing as other programming. For these valuable programmes to survive, it needs to think in new ways and evolve with the public.
I think both PBS and NPR should still qualify for help when it comes to creating new and experimental programming, but the actual day to day expenses of running the stations need to be addressed in terms of practicality. If the local market is not interested in what they offer, it is not economically viable to support the station. Perhaps if both were taken out of the local hands and put more on a national level, it would be easier to manage. PBS could run in the same league as NBC or CBS with only one location airing the main content and allowing local affiliates to air shows of interest to their audience at certain times.
Copyrights And Such Issues
All creative people should have their work protected and they should be paid for their services. That being said, there is a big problem out there with copyright infringement laws because of the set up of the system.
Big corporate movie and music studios today are seen as the poor underdog who are protecting the rights of the artists which is why they are so strongly going after anyone who steals the work of the artists. What heroes they must be?!?
To put it bluntly, these people are only trying to shake down those who refuse to pay their hookers which they pimp out. They don't give a care about artists in general, just the artists which they use to create a profit for their shareholders. They are living on an income generated by the talents of other people. They are making more money on their artists than the artist will ever make who is doing all the real talented work.
It's not like these artists or budding filmmakers can go out in business for themselves because these big companies have slanted the field heavily in their favour from the beginning. Unless you do business through them, you have very little chance of success.
The work of the artist should be protected, not just from those who steal their work, but also from those who leech from their talent.
Official Site Of Callen Damornen
In the UK and Canada, they truly value government sponsored support of the arts. Even the tax to provide quality television programming allows for creative expression that is not allowable on commercial stations.
The United States did try to initiate such an interest in the arts, but the bottom line here is always profit. If there is no monetary value to such a project, it is viewed as a waste of time and money. It is this sort of thinking that cuts school funding for art and music classes as well as decrease support for the National Endowment For The Arts and The Public Broadcasting System. These things are seen as a burden on taxpayers who may not always appreciate what these programmes create and therefore give no value to the nation.
The arts are a valuable thing, but the key is to realize what is art to one is not to others. Just because a handful of political paperpushers without an eye or ear for art must satisfy the status quo and reject or scoff at the value of art to society does not mean it is true. The system is set up wrong and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, but that does not mean we should not support the arts as a nation.
National Endowment For The Arts [NEA]
There is a good notion in the idea of supplying grants and loans to artists to help them get started with a project they have in mind for the good of the people. However, the way the money is distributed is wrong.
Politicians, not artists with a proven track record in their field, determine who gets the money and who does not. When it comes to giving out money, shouldn't the money go to those who have the talent and ambition to actually create something for the benefit of mankind get the money as opposed to just a crony of someone on the board looking for a handout for a project they can play at which will not really be seen by anyone?
I suggest there should be a board on the NEA of experienced painters, sculptors, writers, and other artists from different background who should interview the ones requesting the money. If an artist wants the money, they should present examples of their work and give the panel an idea of what they want to do with the money along with a detailed report on how the expenses will be used and a timeline for completion and how the work will be shown. This panel of qualified artists can determine if this is truly a person with talent who will use the money for the purpose it was meant. A peer to peer panel is much better than politicians who cater to the whims of whomever put them in the job as to what is a worthy project.
Anyone given a grant by the NEA should then be required to sign a contract that if, as a result of the work accomplished by the grant brings in an income of 5 times the value of the grant, he or she should pay back 10% of future earnings into the NEA to help fund new artists who need the help. Such profitable artists can then deduct this contribution from their income for tax purposes. It at least serves as a way to repay the system that brought to them success as well as fund a system that will not overburden taxpayers.
PBS And NPR
With PBS and NPR, it proves troubling to keep many local stations to keep up with expenses. They must continually have drives to raise money from local listeners in order to stay in business so they can provide content that is informational, entertaining, and different from the mainstream media. It may not seem like a popular idea among those of us who do appreciate such things, but perhaps it is time for them to go commercial or to explore other options such as charging extra for cable and satellite access or developing a premium station where one can only access by paying an extra fee or with NPR using a pay service for those who want to reach them through satellite radio.
The idea of PBS and NPR was more financially feasible before the access of satellite and cable. Today, there are just so many different choices for people in the US that both tend to not seem as appealing as other programming. For these valuable programmes to survive, it needs to think in new ways and evolve with the public.
I think both PBS and NPR should still qualify for help when it comes to creating new and experimental programming, but the actual day to day expenses of running the stations need to be addressed in terms of practicality. If the local market is not interested in what they offer, it is not economically viable to support the station. Perhaps if both were taken out of the local hands and put more on a national level, it would be easier to manage. PBS could run in the same league as NBC or CBS with only one location airing the main content and allowing local affiliates to air shows of interest to their audience at certain times.
Copyrights And Such Issues
All creative people should have their work protected and they should be paid for their services. That being said, there is a big problem out there with copyright infringement laws because of the set up of the system.
Big corporate movie and music studios today are seen as the poor underdog who are protecting the rights of the artists which is why they are so strongly going after anyone who steals the work of the artists. What heroes they must be?!?
To put it bluntly, these people are only trying to shake down those who refuse to pay their hookers which they pimp out. They don't give a care about artists in general, just the artists which they use to create a profit for their shareholders. They are living on an income generated by the talents of other people. They are making more money on their artists than the artist will ever make who is doing all the real talented work.
It's not like these artists or budding filmmakers can go out in business for themselves because these big companies have slanted the field heavily in their favour from the beginning. Unless you do business through them, you have very little chance of success.
The work of the artist should be protected, not just from those who steal their work, but also from those who leech from their talent.
Official Site Of Callen Damornen
posted by Callen Damornen at 4:51:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home