Comments on: Quincy Jones Suggests Secretary Of The Arts Position

By: waffleflip

waffleflip — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:22:16 +0000

We artists (musicians, dancers, actors, poets…etc.) are some of the biggest champions of individual expression and personal freedom. Yet somehow, we think it’s okay to create a cabinet position to impose our values on the rest of the country.

This is no different from a nasty special interest group lobbying government to get some preferential treatment. It’s unfair to everyone else who has to support government growth with their wallets.

Constitutionally, it doesn’t matter whether we “like” the idea or not, because this sort of thing has no place in a free society. You and I are as free to embrace art as we are to reject it. The fact that something like this can draw so much support so easily shows just how much our understanding of the role of government has deteriorated.

Think critically before jumping on the bandwagon.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:52:13 +0000

I don’t want this to happen. I am fully in favor of the separation between art and state.

Not that the arts are not important, but I believe that it would be better to use existing organizations to disseminate the goodness of art. Or maybe we could even try to fix our education system. Why do we need a figurehead? We have a Poet Laureate, and she gets 35k a year. I’d be for a Secretary of Arts if they weren’t paid and if they could guarantee a removal of the snobbishness from Art.

By: bennett77

bennett77 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:42:00 +0000

maybe. don’t hold your breath.

By: ssstephg

ssstephg — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:18:15 +0000

i don’t really want to start on the nea or any of that absurd 90s controversy because it still irks me too much. (how much of every tax dollar goes to funding art? even back then it was such a minute fraction as to be almost negligible and most of the funding was indirect.) i don’t really want to get into government funding of the arts at all because i don’t think that’s worth even thinking too hard about at this point. certainly education is huge here, and adopting a more rounded/integrated approach to education that included the arts would be ideal. maybe a secretary of The Arts position could be a catalyst for good things.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:43:38 +0000

Art could dovetail into education better. My suggestion is that we don’t teach the importance of art enough in primary schools. There is a definite favoritism for science and math. It’s a pivotal societal question. Art in general could stand to have a political champion though. What would it hurt in our character as a nation, the ability to deliver another cluster bomb by remote control?

If there is a promotion of art as vital to education as science early on, then having more art in society in general will take care of itself, regardless of questions over “good taste” or “funding stuff everyone doesn’t always like”. If people develop a need for art government won’t need to subsidize it, right? But then again, I’m a radical that way. Deal with the problem at the root, education.

I know for me, the only thing that ever got me interested IN math was integrating the natural sciences into drawing and interpretation, the creative illustration or mere illumination of it in nature. In that, I’ve never liked the compartmentalization our society places on visionary artists. Our right-brain dominance shouldn’t be seen as a handicap, or weakness.

By: f(TB)-ETOH=x

f(TB)-ETOH=x — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:28:48 +0000

I think that’d be fun. Closest thing we have now is the NEA, or National Endowment of the Arts and there’s the guy or gal who heads that. I started reading a book one time called “Leaving Town Alive” which was about one man’s experiences as head of the NEA. I didn’t keep reading it because I got the general idea: tax payers paid tax dollars to fund public art and some of the art that was produced, some members of the public did not like. this all fits in to a time in American politics when the “concervatives” were starting to gain power and the blame was placed on “liberalism”.

How about some “moderation”? We could use a National Arts Moderator. Any takers?

By: jdhastings

jdhastings — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:12:34 +0000

Actually this concept first arose from George Clinton in his masterpiece “Chocolate City” with his band, Parliament. In this work, Clinton traces his dreams of African Americans taking over the white house (due in part to the large african american population of wachington dc itself. During one section he lists off the cabinet positions that should be appointed, including:

“Stevie Wonder, Secretary of FINE arts.”

Guess who’s playing the inauguration?

Never doubt the prophecy of Parilament/Funkadelic.