Re: Art and Government money. Was NPR.

[Heyoka_face_eater <wils0450@tc.umn.edu>]

I ramble on a bit, but there's a point at the end bit. Spot my personal
agenda and win a prize!

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Rob Switzer wrote:

> At best, I think that government arts funding supports an entrenched 
> status-quo.  At worst, I think that the patron ( person/institution 
>paying 
> the tab) often sets the ideological and cultural agenda, either overtly 
>or 
> implicitly.  This is probably not a good thing.
 I remember back in the early 90s when NAFTA went through and the US
government wanted a nice piece of art commerating the "never before
achieved and landmark agreement" (never mind that the indigenous people
had coast to coast trade routes). They got an Indian (feathers, not dots)
who had done comissioned works for the white house many times before to
make it. The format was decided to be a billboard. 
The thing was beautiful man, They had a preview showing and it had all
sorts of neat US type stuff on one side of the border and all sorts of
Aztec type motifs on the other side. THe government loved it and the
coverings were resecured.
 At the unveiling the next day, everything went exactly as planned. I t
was beautiful ceremony with many diplomats and hig-proifle officials
delivering keynote speeches. 

Then the lifted the tarps again. 

This time there was a a large rift of barbed wire between the two halves
of the symbolized billboard. Nice touch that. My point: Even government
sponsored art can have a dramatic impact. (World War II anyone?)