Do you consider a book based on its popularity?

[JCamilo]

I must say that in Brazil it is very hard to produce culture without the help of governament (some laws that allow private donations, them allow taxes reducation - keep in mind the taxes here are a bit too high) - either for for large events or even for the recording of a single album or edition of a single book.
There is some damage (Circo di Solei (dunno the proper spelling right now) an international circo got the incentive - the responsable for bringing them here of course - and them charged the tickets with vallues that would be something like half of the minimum salary here, thus turning it in a elite event and obviously, that would not need such incentive) but it is pretty much a salvation for popular art and cultural preservation.

[mono]

Whew! This thread really went a long way - a lot of catching up to do.

Scholars are profession readers, but what they learn is a certain science of reading. You're a big fan of Northrop Frye, right? Remember the part in the Anatomy when he's talking about how the science of literature isn't the same as the experience of literature. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think he compares it to the study of physics with the actual natural world. What students learn from these disciplines are certain models and a certain vocabulary with which to talk about these things, but their actual existence always remains outside of the discipline. Similarly, scholarly reading reflects certain models and descriptions of reading, but it isn't the same as actual reading. I suppose a physicist would know more about what is happening on a roller-coaster--it is his profession to talk about energy and motion--but is his account of the ride really the best? He would give you a list of numbers and equations. It really wouldn't capture the thrill of the ride. An average person's account of the ride would probably help me decide if I wanted to go on the ride more than a physicist's.

Wow, this really hit home for me! In this sense, we could create a bit of a dichotomy. I will firstly admit myself, not proudly, as a literary snob, and I recognize others amid me - whether they proclaim themselves as well or not, I will leave it to them. The dichotomy splits itself as scholarly readers and uneducated readers, readers like what Wilde woman described:

I read a study a few years ago that said the average American adult's literacy level is around that of 8th grade children. (I think I'm being generous here; some claim American literacy is closer to 5th-grade level.) That means the average Joe you meet on the street has the reading comprehension of a 13-year-old.

This creates a sad fate for both dichotomies, based upon the argument that we both consider books based upon their popularities. A few authors can squeeze themselves through both categories, such as John Steinbeck, Jane Austen, and J.R.R. Tolkein, but let us consider the in-depth, extreme authors that truly create the split - in one corner of the boxer's ring, we have Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Dante Alighieri; in the other corner, we have Stephen King, Nora Roberts, and John Grisham. Do you catch my drift?
All of these writers have a distinguished and undeniable popularity in their own fields of literature. Perhaps we do not read all of them, but I have never met an individual who spoke ill of Goethe. Intellectuals read Goethe, Sartre, and Dante not only as scholars, but also out of their popularity among the other intellectual readers; not to insult people who read King, Roberts, or Grisham, but others read them out of their popularity. Just because one reads Dante does not make him/her intelligent, and I agree with DrkShadow in claiming that a correct interpretation of The Divine Comedy does not exist, but an incorrect one does, yet perhaps we can choose which side of the boxing ring we desire to fit into - whether we belong there, others may judge.
Not that I consider myself the sharpest reader of Goethe, Dante, or Sartre, but I have read them all, fiction and non-fiction, and I fully admit that I started reading them based upon their popularity in the intellectual fields. Did I want to appear intelligent while reading Faust on the commuter train? No, but I genuinely gained an interest in it after not only recognizing its intelligent value, and also after reading its synopsis prior to cracking open the gem; now, I consider it one of the best pieces of literature ever written.
I love my mother to death, and have no doubts of her superior intelligence, but she reads Nora Roberts' novels. The admitted literary snob and elitist I consider myself, while I recall holding Hobbes' Leviathan under my arm, I asked her why she reads . . . these types of novels. She calls them "brain candy," and something easy to read after a difficult day at work (she also works in medicine); she knows the negative bias readers of classical literature, like I, have, but reads them solely out of enjoyment, choosing them, indeed, out of their popularity.

[stlukesguild]

Well, you hit the problem. On this side of the border, the notion of the "culture as a whole" is considered by many writers to be offensive.

And...? I personally find the majority of American popular culture to be crass and vulgar... but should I then be entitled to financial support of the government through the tax dollars of population as a whole whose values I don't share?

There is no coherent Canadian tradition, and the fact that the bulk of our writers are immigrants, or from immigrant families, many of which with racial/linguistic separators from the mainstream, makes any sense of "support the culture" quite difficult.

Again the question is "And...?" Is it the responsibility of the government to somehow counteract the biases of the market system... to offer up support for outsiders and minorities. Is it the role of the government to push some false egalitarianism? Are you saying that Black and Asian and Native-American and immigrants are deserving of special support. Personally I am a true elitist when it comes to art. I am concerned about nothing but the aesthetic merits of the work. Art has never been Egalitarian. The number of brilliant artists in any given form or genre is not spread out evenly among every nation, culture, religion, race, gender, or gender preference. There are more great writers from Britain than from Hungary and more great composers from Germany than from Portugal... or anywhere else. I have no use for a system of support of the arts that would favor an Asian or a Black or a Native-American writer over a the stereotypical White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male for any reason other than artistic merit. Either the support is political or artistic. If the goal is supporting work of the greatest artistic merit, political/racial/gender issues should have nothing to do with the decisions. If the goal is political, then that shouldn't be hidden behind false pretexts.

In a sense, I see it as a way in which the government, well, their arts system at any rate, tries to distort the perceived cultural identity of Canada, because, after all, even the whole "cultural mosaic" has been exposed as flawed, harmful, and segratory.

Again... if the goal is political, then that shouldn't be hidden behind false pretexts.

The only way for a poet to really make money, is to enter into the big anthologies. In this sense, that means, a) American/English anthologies, like the Norton (of which, I think, I counted around half a dozen Canadians, with about 2 poems each - less than the selection of Ezra Pound alone), or somehow get giant sales.

Uh... no. The poet could also get a job. If I recall correctly Dante, Goethe, William Blake, Keats, T.S. Eliot and endless other poets (and artists of every form and genre) have labored at a "day job". Every artist is essentially in business for him or herself. The government would not think that anyone was entitled to taxpayer support for starting up a business creating a product that was largely unwanted. What makes artists entitled to such?

Most associate themselves with academic institutions (another government funded program, as all universities (the ones that actually are credited at any rate) are government funded), or to get a day job.

Yes... and what is wrong with that?

But the question then comes, with the rise of the anthology as a sort of form, and the intense research and effort needed to really put together a good anthology, how are these people going to manage? And even when they do, how are they going to manage? It's OK if they are from rich, established families, but from poor, or newly arrived families, who face racial/cultural prejudices in workplaces and society, and even in the publishing world?

No... the central question remains why are these artists deserving of taxpayer support? Other questions include: Is this system of government enforced patronage on the public dollar an more inherently fair than the free market system... than the support of the masses, the wealthy patrons, and the institutions? and Is there any proof of the merits of this system? Where are the unsung geniuses who have been rescued and brought to light?

No, the government system is essential. Not only does it protect artists from publishing tyranny, but also from imperialist tyranny.

So it is the role of the government to counteract the free market system... the opinions of the masses and the wealthy individuals? Personally I don't think it does much to protect artists... rather it simply rewards artists who fit within another clique... that favored by certain academics who serve as the jurors upon such awards committees... but it rewards them with public tax dollars. Personally, I can't see why I should be taxed so that someone writing experimental Lesbian Feminist Inuit poetry can take a nice long sabbatical in Greece. By stating that government support is a necessity you are suggesting that A. There is little interest in such work B. Such work could not survive without governmental support... which leads me to question just how serious the artists are about their vision if it can only survive with governmental support. Again, I might point out that William Blake never needed (or probably expected) governmental support for him to remain true to his vision.

I think that is a somewhat responsible system. In truth, if these artists were living at home off of welfare, they would make similar amounts of money.

The reality is that it is a form of Welfare... and I still question its merits. I read (and these numbers were from the mid-1980s) that art schools in the United States churn out over 100,000 BFAs a year in the visual arts. Are we expected to support all of these great "visionaries" no matter how bad or how unwanted their work may be?

[JBI]

What are your aesthetic merits? Your sense of tradition is built on what? Your sense of judgment on what? On what Harold Bloom calls Aesthetic merit? On the Western Canon is your background?

The truth is, such constructs are artificial. Even the notion of the West is an ethnocentric one. For all this talk of literary merit, I've never once heard much talk about Li Bai, or Du Fu. I think I'm the only one who has ever mentioned Lu Hsun (often translated as Xun), despite that virtually all his works are now available in translation.

What of the Mahabharata? Surely even the snippet of the Bhagavad Gita alone satisfies literary merit. It's quite easy to discuss Cervantes here, for all his literary merit, but I've never once heard mention of Journey to the West here, despite its aesthetic merit, and the fact that it too is now readily available in translation. But of course, we all love to read from everywhere. That's why Wilson Harris is as discussed on these boards as Twilight, Harry Potter, and the Da Vinci Code, right? Who?


For all this talk about aesthetic merit, and not caring what the background of the writer is, I find it very strange how on these forums, not once are any of these central texts mentioned.


When you question the role of the government, you need to say which government. For all your statements about is it the role of the government to do x, more often than not, I say yes, it is. Many major developed countries support their artists, in fact, I think most of them now do.

Quite simply, I find your romantic notions of art inapplicable in today's society. Bookstores sell books, periodicals and billboards, and websites advertise books, and Americans owns the publishers, with the exception of a few fringe ones here. Now you suppose these people are not committed to their art, because they want to get a little governmental support to produce it, since without that, either it wouldn't have the ability to be made, or quite simply would just fade into oblivion (as did the majority of modernists texts in Canada, which major publishers refused to publish). In truth, it was believed Canada didn't even have a modernist movement in prose, because quite simply, these artists' work disappeared (and began to be unearthed about 5 years ago) because, quite simply, there was no governmental support for the arts, and no domestic ethnocentricity to boost sales.


Like I said, people get grants and subsidies for projects, not just for being artists. They are doing something, and if they are painting, they are probably using the cash to buy supplies of some sort, or a workplace of some sort. If you ask most Canadian writers, especially those working in theatre or the visual arts, they will tell you that the bulk of their projects could not have been realized without government support.

That being said, what's the role of your government? For all this talk, I think the reason this concept is so unpalatable to you, is because of the way your government functions, and the way the arts in the United States function in general.

The big difference:

T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Henry James, Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, Edith Wharton, Richard Wright.

American authors

Michael Ondaatje, Rienzi Crusz, Austin Clarke, Jim Wong-Chu, Rohinton Mistry, Nino Ricci, Pier Girogio di Cicco, Frederick Philip Grove. (I think it is also important to note that my spellchecker doesn't pick up any spelling mistakes from the American names, but half of these Canadian ones are underlined)

Notice the difference?

I'll give you a hint: (the American authors are all American authors, despite not living in the United States for the bulk of their lives, whereas the Canadian authors are Canadian because they moved to Canada).

The difference is, I think, extremely clear. American culture, and American so called aesthetics are obsessed with America primarily, and American culture. Canadian aesthetics have virtually nothing to do with Canada, and, instead, have more to do with world culture in general. It seems futile for a government to promote itself, when it really doesn't need to, as virtually everything their culture does and stands for, is a form of self-promotion. In truth, you get very little of the satirical take on history that seems to embody virtually all historical artwork from every other developed country (think Saramago here, for instance). If the United States can be said to be the best at something (besides perhaps baseball), it is promoting itself. In truth, the mandate of the country these days is supposedly to "spread freedom and democracy". There is no real need of a support of pluralism within that context.

So yeah, I can't help but take offense. Your aesthetic judgments, for all they are worth, are nothing but rhetoric. There is no such thing as a coherent sense of aesthetic merit over another work, unless you have seen the other work. In that sense, translation too needs to be funded, as it is (though primarily from academic institutions, which here are state-funded). To really judge aesthetically, you need a text in front of you. If that text is cut off because American publishers, and American-influenced consumers don't want to buy into them, then I think yeah, you need a state funding of some sort.


I would also like to point out, that even your most aesthetic of all artists, William Shakespeare himself enjoyed a patronage of some kind, which really saw off his Sonnets to publication, amongst other works. Are we to say that they perhaps would have come down anyway?

The National Endowment for the Arts in the States is around 155million according to Wiki (lets say they are accurate, just for arguments sake).

According to Wiki, the Canada Council, puts out 152million, receives 16000 grant requests, and grants around 6000 (this is from the 2006 figures).

In contrast, the Arts Council of Ireland, puts out according to Wikipedia, 75.7 million Euros (which I think is somewhere around 101 million US).

Norway puts out to the Norsk Kulturrad (Arts Council Norway) 304million NOK which comes to around 46.5 million US.

Who knows though, perhaps there is a correlation between interest and funding. Perhaps this would explain why a poster a few pages back called Irish people the most literate. Perhaps this may explain the strong arts cultures within European countries. Hey, it seems like this thing matters.

Just googling a bit, I came across this article:

http://www.osborne-conant.org/arts_funding.htm

I'll just put out the questions, to promote the discussion a little bit.

n review, we see that Europe’s funding traditions and models suggest several policies and administrative practices Americans might consider:

1. Europeans use public funding to provide alternatives to the marketplace for cultural expression. This reinforces freedom of artistic expression and deeply enriches their societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as an arbiter of culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends billions on other intellectual spheres, such as education, space exploration and scientific research, but we have seriously limited our cultural lives through a suspicion toward public arts funding.

2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural identity of society. This no longer happens in Europe, and need not happen in America.

3. European arts funding is generally decentralized and administered mostly on the state and municipals levels. The NEA’s centralized funding makes it an easy target for populist political attacks. Europeans would also find it strange for a federal government to fund the arts in any specific way because it is so difficult at that level to have direct contact with the lives and work of artists and the communities they serve. The NEA and the states must continue to develop arts-funding models directly connected to cities, towns and regional communities.

4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to establish and assert their place in the world, often through extensive cultural diplomacy. American politicians should be reminded that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far more than an F-16, and for a tiny fraction of the costs, both economic and human. Given our talent, educational system, and wealth, we must renew our vision of how brightly our cultural light could shine.

5. Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the performing arts within their communities. Classical music is far more relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often hundreds of miles away. America’s children should perceive the arts as part of their communities. And our more talented children should be able to think of the arts as a realistic career option, just as children in Europe do.

6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the lighter classics, they still stress classical musical for its inherent strengths. As the American Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has been trying to build publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts since the 1960s. This has had a partially adverse effect through lowering the public’s expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly influencing classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical music’s inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be awakened.

7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest and most complete expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence, Rome, Prague, Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few, are all embued with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as if they have lost hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and inhuman urban wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit assumption has had a profound but largely unrecognized effect on American political and cultural discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban of art forms. Its status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy of our cities. Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are deeply interdependent.

Over the long term, these general understandings that Europeans have gained over centuries of experience could beneficially influence the political and cultural climate in America. It is not enough that people have freedom of speech; they must also have mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and debating it. Public arts funding is deeply valuable because it encourages societies to be diverse, intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic. It furthers the discourse societies need to fully express their communal and national identity and place it in the rest of the world. It furthers our ability to heal and help. It furthers our well-being, freedom of expression, and pursuit of happiness. Public arts funding represents the deepest American ideals.

[stlukesguild]

What are your aesthetic merits? Your sense of tradition is built on what? Your sense of judgment on what? The truth is, such constructs are artificial. Even the notion of the West is an ethnocentric one. For all this talk of literary merit, I've never once heard much talk about Li Bai, or Du Fu. I think I'm the only one who has ever mentioned Lu Hsun (often translated as Xun), despite that virtually all his works are now available in translation.

Come on... aesthetic relativism? That's just a weak-minded bit of nonsense passed off in universities by academics who are far more concerned about enforcing an artificial egalitarianism than they are about art. You yourself moaned about being stuck reading Marie de France and skipping Dante and have had little kind to say about Harry Potter.

As for artistic multiculturalism... I'm all for exploring other voices. if you recall, I'm the one who started the thread on the Eastern Canon and have brought up questions about Japanese and Chinese poets as well as Middle-Eastern authors and even medieval Hebrew poets from Islamic Spain. Nor have I been anywhere near the grand champion of American writers that you have been for Canadians. Even there, you might recall that I have made more than one posting about Anne Carson.

What of the Mahabharata? Surely even the snippet of the Bhagavad Gita alone satisfies literary merit.

Certainly... and the Shah-nameh and the Qur'an and the Tao Te Ching and The Adventures of Amir Hamza.

It's quite easy to discuss Cervantes here, for all his literary merit, but I've never once heard mention of Journey to the West here, despite its aesthetic merit, and the fact that it too is now readily available in translation. But of course, we all love to read from everywhere. That's why Wilson Harris is as discussed on these boards as Twilight, Harry Potter, and the Da Vinci Code, right? Who?

Of course you might also note that The Davinci Code, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are also more often discussed than Goethe, Holderlin, Nerval, Neruda... even Borges, Calvino, and Kafka. You can suggest an Anglo-centrism (and this certainly is to be expected in the English-speaking world)... but I can argue an equal aesthetic myopia.

For all this talk about aesthetic merit, and not caring what the background of the writer is, I find it very strange how on these forums, not once are any of these central texts mentioned.

Again... I have thrown out postings related to my readings of such central non-Western authors... and gotten little response. This does not lead me to the conclusion that we should be throwing more money in support of the efforts of contemporary outsider and minority artists. Perhaps a broader base of education.

When you question the role of the government, you need to say which government. For all your statements about is it the role of the government to do x, more often than not, I say yes, it is. Many major developed countries support their artists, in fact, I think most of them now do.

Again, the question is why is it the essential duty of the government to spend money in the support of artists who (by your suggestion) cannot survive otherwise? Of course I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. I am not fully against government patronage (at least of institutions, orchestras, etc...) nor of patronage in general... but what makes you feel that the art which cannot survive in the market either through the support of the masses or of wealthy individuals is worthy of my tax dollars?

Quite simply, I find your romantic notions of art inapplicable in today's society. Bookstores sell books, periodicals and billboards, and websites advertise books, and Americans owns the publishers, with the exception of a few fringe ones here. Now you suppose these people are not committed to their art, because they want to get a little governmental support to produce it, since without that, either it wouldn't have the ability to be made, or quite simply would just fade into oblivion (as did the majority of modernists texts in Canada, which major publishers refused to publish).

How are my notions "Romantic"? I don't recall Pablo Picasso (an immigrant to France), T.S. Eliot (an immigrant to Britain) or endless others depending upon government hand-outs. William Blake didn't need to rely upon the publishers... he printed his own damn books... as did William Morris. Of course such results in a smaller audience... initially. Is it the initial size of the audience that assures survival? In reality, the history of government support (in the visual arts at least) has bee abysmal. It was never the Impressionists or Courbet or Van Gogh who earned the grants, but rather the academics with connections to the other academics involved in the award process.

In truth, it was believed Canada didn't even have a modernist movement in prose, because quite simply, these artists' work disappeared (and began to be unearthed about 5 years ago) because, quite simply, there was no governmental support for the arts, and no domestic ethnocentricity to boost sales.

How supportive was the United States? If I recall, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Hemingway, etc... relied initially upon European... especially French and British publishers. If such is the sole goal, what stopped the Canadians from becoming ex-patriots like Eliot, etc...?

Like I said, people get grants and subsidies for projects, not just for being artists. They are doing something, and if they are painting, they are probably using the cash to buy supplies of some sort, or a workplace of some sort.

Yes... they are making something... something for which there is a very limited demand (if any at all)... and I should be taxed to support it? I pay for my own studio space (quite a hefty sum... I could be driving a far better car), my own paints and art supplies, and if I decide that I need to travel to see an art exhibition in New York, I'll pay for that as well and not expect that I am entitled to a share the tax dollars.

If you ask most Canadian writers, especially those working in theatre or the visual arts, they will tell you that the bulk of their projects could not have been realized without government support.

And...? I have a friend who is an architect and an artist. He has never seen any of his architectural projects realized. Another friend is a composer who has never heard any of his works performed by a major symphonic orchestra. Should they be entitled to such? The reality is that the system of entitlements is just as unfair as that of the free market. Do you honestly believe that only the best art is being awarded these grants? Robert Mapplethorpe... a third-rate photographer whose entire career is virtually a rip-off of Imogen Cunningham... deserved public monies so that he could take more photos of large penises and bull-whips stuck up his posterior? Again... you suggest that these entitlements are a necessity... the proof is in the pudding. Who are the major artists who have been rescued from obscurity through public aid?

That being said, what's the role of your government? For all this talk, I think the reason this concept is so unpalatable to you, is because of the way your government functions, and the way the arts in the United States function in general.

I'll give you a hint: (the American authors are all American authors, despite not living in the United States for the bulk of their lives, whereas the Canadian authors are Canadian because they moved to Canada).

The difference is, I think, extremely clear. American culture, and American so called aesthetics are obsessed with America primarily, and American culture.

Canadian aesthetics have virtually nothing to do with Canada, and, instead, have more to do with world culture in general. It seems futile for a government to promote itself, when it really doesn't need to, as virtually everything their culture does and stands for, is a form of self-promotion... If the United States can be said to be the best at something (besides perhaps baseball), it is promoting itself. In truth, the mandate of the country these days is supposedly to "spread freedom and democracy". There is no real need of a support of pluralism within that context.

C'mon, JBI... this is just more of your Anti-American/pro-Canadian jingoism. Arshile Gorky, Willem DeKooing, Philip Guston, Mark Rothko... all central figures to Abstract Expressionism... the first artistic movement in which the United States was the center of the art world. Every one of them was an immigrant. Gorky escaped the Armenian genocide and worked in a factory. Rotho was Jewish Russian and taught in the public schools for 30 years. DeKooning was Dutch and also worked in a factory. Guston... was Canadian. Yet all the aesthetics of our art is self-obsessed? That's nonsense. At least within my field of the visual arts we are more than painfully aware of our position in contrast to the ancient cultures of Europe, Asia, and the Middle-East.

In truth, you get very little of the satirical take on history that seems to embody virtually all historical artwork from every other developed country (think Saramago here, for instance).

Gore Vidal? Thomas Pynchon? John Barth? Nabokov... but of course he was an immigrant. Hell, American literature is laden with writers who offer a less-than-ideal picture of American culture and history (Faulkner, Dos Passos, etc...). To suggest that American art and literature is just a great monolithic self-aggrandizing behemoth shut off from the rest of the world is far more offensive than anything I might have suggested... and I might add, more than a bit blinded by a pro-Canadian victim stance.

So yeah, I can't help but take offense. Your aesthetic judgments, for all they are worth, are nothing but rhetoric. There is no such thing as a coherent sense of aesthetic merit over another work, unless you have seen the other work.

And so we cannot know that the latest in the Twilight series is a piece of aesthetic crap... we must read and experience all before offering any comparison... but that leads us back to the reality that certain works of art survive while others are lost over the ages. And this would all seem to be the result of the workings of the market. Certain works retain relevance and resonate across time. I won't deny that there are political and economic realities that bear influence. A brilliant poet writing in Hungary in the 1600s has more than a few strikes going against him or her. But what is the alternative? Are we responsible assure each an every artist an equal audience? Bailing out the banks would be nothing in comparison to seeing to i that every person who believes he or she is a writer or a poet or an artist is given the finacial support to compete with Pynchon, Harry Potter, and Damien Hirst.

In that sense, translation too needs to be funded, as it is (though primarily from academic institutions, which here are state-funded). To really judge aesthetically, you need a text in front of you. If that text is cut off because American publishers, and American-influenced consumers don't want to buy into them, then I think yeah, you need a state funding of some sort.

Again, it comes down to a a finite or limited amount of resources or funding and endless works of art waiting for their audience. How many of Dante's and Petrarch's poetic peers have never been given full quality translations? Outside of the Hymns to the Night, how much of Novalis oeuvre is available to an English language audience? Again... one also might be expected to also ask (when using taxpayer money) what are we getting for our dollar? Are we getting something a great worth to the people who are footing the bill?

I'll continue the rest of this dialog later... there are some interesting points certainly deserving of being addressed.

[Brave Archer]

There are times were I have read a book based on popularity, Dan Brown comes to mind. I picked up Angels and Demons, which had a story I enjoyed, although not greatly written, and I also picked up Davinci, which had a story I couldn't stomach for more than two pages.

Most of the time it is all a popularity contest. Look at any top 100 list, and you'll find popular authors. In my opinion, I think James Baldwin is one of a handful of great American authors and I stumbled onto him.

I guess my answer is, it depends on the situation.

[stlukesguild]

OK... where did I leave off? You posted a series of statements relating to arts funding:

1. Europeans use public funding to provide alternatives to the marketplace for cultural expression. This reinforces freedom of artistic expression and deeply enriches their societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as an arbiter of culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends billions on other intellectual spheres, such as education, space exploration and scientific research, but we have seriously limited our cultural lives through a suspicion toward public arts funding.

How does the funding of work which you suggest cannot survive in the market system without assistance actually provide much in the way of an alternative in the marketplace? The work awarded such funding is certainly going to be that which fits the narrow range favored by the academic poets/painters/composers who make up the body deciding who is or is not worthy of such endowments. By and large most of this sort of art is already guaranteed a certain degree of survival through the support of these very institutions. The question that still begs to be answered is why any art which cannot survive through the support of the masses in the marketplace, through the patronage of the wealthy, or through the support of institutions such as that of universities... or through the tenacity and perseverance of the artists is deserving of the support of public tax dollars... especially in times of financial stress and when there are so many more important things begging for the public dollar: education, medical costs, etc...

2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural identity of society. This no longer happens in Europe, and need not happen in America.

I have no problem with this argument. American politicians certainly love to play this card... portraying each other as snobbish elitists out of touch with the common man. Artists, poets, the Hollywood producers, the record industry, homosexuals, those who live in the cities are continually demonized and portrayed as not "real Americans" or sharing "real American values" by politicians seeking the support of certain fearful voters... but of course the reality is that there is no monolithic "real American" or "real American values". There is also a a large remnant of our pragmatic Puritan heritage that remains among a large portion of our population who believe that art is not only not a necessity, but it is also something effete... wasteful... or at least not of any practical use. I still don't see how funding art through public monies is going to change this. If anything it merely opens up these artists to such attacks of wastefulness, etc...

3. European arts funding is generally decentralized and administered mostly on the state and municipals levels. The NEA’s centralized funding makes it an easy target for populist political attacks. Europeans would also find it strange for a federal government to fund the arts in any specific way because it is so difficult at that level to have direct contact with the lives and work of artists and the communities they serve. The NEA and the states must continue to develop arts-funding models directly connected to cities, towns and regional communities.

Certainly this may be a part of the problem. The artists awarded WPA funding back in the time of the Great Depression often worked in and for local or regional communities... providing art for regional theaters, post-offices, schools, etc... It is hard to justify doling out grants so that an artist can travel to France or Italy to ostensibly study the old masters when a great percentage of the very population whose tax dollars are being used to fund such cannot afford the same "luxury".

4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to establish and assert their place in the world, often through extensive cultural diplomacy. American politicians should be reminded that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far more than an F-16, and for a tiny fraction of the costs, both economic and human. Given our talent, educational system, and wealth, we must renew our vision of how brightly our cultural light could shine.

The governments have always done as much... in the US as much as anywhere else. The major orchestras, operas, museums, etc... are a continual means of promoting the culture. It might be noted, however, that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein, Louis Armstrong... and one might add Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollack, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, Walt Whitman, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, etc... have never needed the support of tax money to reach an international audience. Of course art always follows money and the wealth of the United States has given many artists in the US advantages over artists in other countries. Of course this has been true across history which is why various nations and cities become artistic centers for a given period of time. At the same time I somehow doubt that had an artist gained the support of the government in 15th century Hungary it would have in any way been as useful as the support of the DeMedici in Florence. In the long run... the art must come to the recognition of the market in the great cultural/economic centers.

5. Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the performing arts within their communities. Classical music is far more relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often hundreds of miles away. America’s children should perceive the arts as part of their communities. And our more talented children should be able to think of the arts as a realistic career option, just as children in Europe do.

Now this is absolute nonsense. The genuine major orchestras and theaters may be separated by hundreds of miles... but we are comparing two very different geographies. The single state of Texas is larger than France, Germany, or Great Britain... but there are far greater expanses that are sparsely inhabited. One cannot assume that a far rural tract of North Dakota will have easy access to such major arts institutions... but I doubt the reality is far different in Russia, China... or Canada for that matter. Living in Ohio... which is certainly not the center of arts culture in the world... I still have access to the Cleveland Orchestra, Opera Cleveland, The Akron Symphony, The Cleveland Museum of Art, The Oberlin Museum of Art, the Akron Art Museum, the Toledo Museum of Art, at least half a dozen professional theaters, etc... If I am willing to drive a few hours there is much more (Columbus, Detroit, Pittsburgh) and the major arts centers of Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and New York are but 6 to 8 hours by car.

At the same time I agree that children often are limited in their artistic outlook and experience... but this has far more to do with education than access. Our schools are struggling to make ends meet and the arts are often the first "luxury" to be trimmed. Exposure to music, literature, and art is often far less than what it should be in our schools and if this is not supplied by parents the children have little notion. Perhaps if we are to spend tax dollars on the arts it should be in the form of arts education... giving students a broader notion of their world.

6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the lighter classics, they still stress classical musical for its inherent strengths. As the American Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has been trying to build publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts since the 1960s. This has had a partially adverse effect through lowering the public’s expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly influencing classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical music’s inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be awakened.

This problem is often due to the fact that there is a notion that the size of the audience is the sole measure of success. This practical approach has been carried over from the business world to the arts... and the educational institutions with highly questionable results. Universities and art museums and orchestras are often headed by CEOs with MBAs rather than by arts experts and art lovers. As I have already stated above, I have no problem with the notion of spending tax dollars on such institutions as museums and orchestras preserving and promoting works of art in which the worth or value is not truly questioned. Many of the CEOs of these same institutions are more than willing to sell out their values for a larger audience. Thus we have universities catering to student demands for courses on comic books and porn films, art museums throwing together exhibitions devoted to Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, etc... other Museums selling off ("deaccessioning") major works in order to purchase works of questionable merit to buy something that will make a big splash in the press, etc... Again... it is here... in maintaining the standards of our institutions whose role is to preserve the best art of the past... and in our educational institutions which have the ability to develop future audiences for the arts... that I believe we should be spending any tax money... not in the questionable effort of providing stipends for obscure minimalist composers teaching at some liberal arts college in Vermont.

7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest and most complete expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence, Rome, Prague, Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few, are all embued with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as if they have lost hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and inhuman urban wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit assumption has had a profound but largely unrecognized effect on American political and cultural discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban of art forms. Its status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy of our cities. Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are deeply interdependent.

This is a problem that goes far beyond the arts and whether we see our cities as cultural centers. Part of it has to do with the way taxes are raised and spent in the US. Those who work in the large urban centers commonly live in the suburbs and their tax dollars (property taxes and commonly half of their income taxes) are earmarked to these suburban communities. These people see no reason why the fruits of their labor should be used to support additional police forces, teachers, etc... to counteract the declining conditions in the cities. At the same time... inexpensive housing and governmental assistance for the same is often limited to the larger cities thereby creating ghettos for the poor and the minorities and assuring that they won't end up in our back yard.

Until taxation is not localized and we begin to recognize that the cities and their surrounding suburbs and rural communities are all interlinked and interdependent... this problem will continue to escalate. In spite of the fact that the cities often remain centers of industry, employment, transportation, and culture, our government has for far to long written laws that penalize these very same cities. Billions of dollars have been spent on constructing superhighways allowing for rapid commuting between the suburbs and the cities... making it far more attractive for someone to live 40 or 50 miles away from the urban center where he or she works. At the same time the government has often awarded great tax incentives to builders constructing homes and strip malls in these one rural communities further drawing people away from the cities. These cities must then contend with the problems of a population that is often at or below the poverty level with less resources which leads to an inevitable increase in crime, decline in services such as education, and obviously even more population loss of any one who can afford to leave.

Your commenter states, "questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are deeply interdependent" I would suggest, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our urban, suburban, and rural environments are deeply interdependent.

Over the long term, these general understandings that Europeans have gained over centuries of experience could beneficially influence the political and cultural climate in America. It is not enough that people have freedom of speech; they must also have mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and debating it. Public arts funding is deeply valuable because it encourages societies to be diverse, intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic. It furthers the discourse societies need to fully express their communal and national identity and place it in the rest of the world. It furthers our ability to heal and help. It furthers our well-being, freedom of expression, and pursuit of happiness. Public arts funding represents the deepest American ideals.

Again... I support the arts funding when it takes the form of support for educational institutions, museums, orchestras, performing arts theaters, etc... At the same time, I question the merit or value of support for the individual contemporary artist who cannot survive or create without public money. I would also point out that the vast majority of the artists and art that most fully expresses our communal and national identities and places it in the rest of the world has done so without the need of public dollars. The music of Appalachia and the the Jazz of New Orleans rose out of some of the poorest regions of the nation. The Abstract Expressionists who remade the face of art were commonly employed for years in the drudgery of manual labor in order to make ends meet. I have no romantic illusions that the artist must or should suffer to create... still artist survive and thrive in spite of their circumstances... rarely because they met the criteria to gain government support in the form of tax dollars.

[mono]

*bump*
Considering that I really loved discussing and reading about this hot topic, and that we have a few newer members on the forum, I thought to give this thread another chance.

[Don Quixote Jr]

Do you consider a book based on its popularity?

Not usually, but then again, you're reading a post by someone who has read just about everything written by James Clavell, James Michener, Michael Crichton and John Grisham... All of whom I presume are much more popular than heavyweight. If I like the first book I read by an author, I'll usually read more, and if I dislike the first book by an author, I usually avoid them. This usually works for me, except in the case of Gore Vidal...I really liked Burr and Myra Breckinridge but couldn't get through 1876.
So far it's worked for me in the case of the loathsome Ayn Rand, I wouldn't touch anything written by her with somebody else's hand on an eleven-foot pole, even if they were wearing a hazmat suit!
Occasionally I'll become interested in a book by seeing it featured at a local bookstore. One recent example is Spade & Archer, the prequel to The Maltese Falcon. I borrowed the audio copy from the local library because I like The Maltese Falcon a lot and this prequel seems to have gotten some favorable reviews.
Overall I try to avoid judging a book by it's popularity or lack thereof, I'm more inclined to heed the suggestions of friends in regards to what I'll read next.

[teashi]

I usually get a book because I've heard it (or the author) is good and could be interesting to me. I don't care much for Oprah stickers, they themselves don't make me not want to try a book, they just tell me Oprah or someone working for Oprah liked it enough to put a sticker/label on it and let other people know. And if some Oprah fans value her opinion and it interests them to read those books.. well what's the harm.
What I don't like are those 'Now a major motion picture!' labels.. the ones that are part of the cover and don't scratch off.

[Quark]

Considering that I really loved discussing and reading about this hot topic, and that we have a few newer members on the forum, I thought to give this thread another chance.

Always thinking, Mono

[mono]

Always thinking, Mono

I do what I can, friend, but usually I just try to keep up with others.

Not usually, but then again, you're reading a post by someone who has read just about everything written by James Clavell, James Michener, Michael Crichton and John Grisham... All of whom I presume are much more popular than heavyweight.

Interesting thought, Don Quixote Jr, and it makes me wonder if a lot of us, including myself, refuse to even consider a book based upon its popularity. Out of that list, I have only read Michael Crichton and James Clavell, neither of whom I liked, and have not given another chance. While we readers tend to group a lot of authors in the same categories (genres, too, but I speak primarily of how you said, "more popular than heavyweight"), I tend to turn the other cheek at the same authors, among many others; my swift judgment of thinking that I will likely not enjoy their books seems a bit unjust, admittedly so, but just as many of us inevitably consider a book based upon its popularity, I think we do not consider them, too.

[Jozanny]

I evaluate whether or not to read a text based on the challenge it might offer me, and sales have scant little to do with this. The reviewers I respect usually don't disappoint me, but recently they did with their cheerleading for Richard Yates and Revolutionary Road. Best anti-suburbia work my foot. Frank and Alice Wheeler are paint-by-numbers characters reheated to death through the failing studio mill between say, 56 to 79, around which time the genre starts dying out. Oddly, it was the real estate agent and her son who came through with any ontological realism. Popular stories are necessary. Without them the best talents have nothing to play off of and challenge. To use an easy example, what Puzo did with The Godfather was to Americanize the corrosion of possibly once valid Italian social norms. But it took Scorsese's Mean Streets to remove the operatic attraction of gangster methodology and institute the brutal realism of a diseased code, that, by the 70's, was an American hybrid all its own. It is rather difficult to have high art without mass commercialism informing upon it.

[kelby_lake]

Most of the time it is all a popularity contest. Look at any top 100 list, and you'll find popular authors. In my opinion, I think James Baldwin is one of a handful of great American authors and I stumbled onto him.

I guess my answer is, it depends on the situation.

I really like Giovanni's Room and I came upon that by accident.

Yep, I would read a book if it became very popular, but normally I distrust popularity- often it becomes mere hype and not a reflection of the book's quality.
I like obscure works which have high ratings by a few people much more.