I more and more frequently wonder if the "arts" wouldn't be far better off if all public funding were ended. Perhaps, rather than wringing our hands at a decline in funding, we should celebrate. Name any significant art more than 50 years old that could attribute its success to public money.
And of course I can't avoid noting the utter disaster that has become "art" in the last half century. Shutter the museums (while returning all the stolen loot to respective countries), disband the "art" councils in every state and lay off the staff of all art-related nonprofits! And for good measure, close every university art department. When the smoke clears, Art may thrive once again.
Robert Henri argued to end the prizes over a century ago: "The pernicious influence of prize and medal giving in art is so great that it should be stopped." That was before multi-billion-dollar entities like Ford. He was right then and you're right now.
There are also apt lyrics in a Dylan song that go, "Let's overturn these tables, disconnect these cables, this place don't make sense to me no more." I admit to being the product of an art department, but regret, looking back a few decades, that I didn't save money and instead clean brushes and stretch canvas for someone I admired.
Academia neither wants nor intends to reform significantly, though it might deign to fake it better for cosmetic purposes. It is, simply, corrupted, or rather perverted, and the matter is both wide and deep. Of course, delusions of both intellectual and moral superiority and presumed entitlement do not help.
Regarding the museum situation in Portland, been there, done that--and still angry over it after all these years. The principal and key thing about a museum is what it offers the public in terms of art, not the building in which it does it. If the art fails, no facility of any kind can compensate for that. I'm not talking in the abstract; I've seen this movie before, and it was not only a dud but, to my mind, a crime.
PMA has a rock-solid historical collection at least, which is not something you've witnessed in Miami. Like most woke museums they're embarrassed about it, but the work will outlive the curators. Nevertheless, whether they've blown the goodwill of the community to too great a degree to recover new-building momentum before the next recession remains to be seen.
I wasn't just talking about the permanent collection but also what the museum puts before the public, which need not belong to the museum. And yes, I expect "they're embarrassed about it," when they should be embarrassed about their embarrassment.
I more and more frequently wonder if the "arts" wouldn't be far better off if all public funding were ended. Perhaps, rather than wringing our hands at a decline in funding, we should celebrate. Name any significant art more than 50 years old that could attribute its success to public money.
And of course I can't avoid noting the utter disaster that has become "art" in the last half century. Shutter the museums (while returning all the stolen loot to respective countries), disband the "art" councils in every state and lay off the staff of all art-related nonprofits! And for good measure, close every university art department. When the smoke clears, Art may thrive once again.
Robert Henri argued to end the prizes over a century ago: "The pernicious influence of prize and medal giving in art is so great that it should be stopped." That was before multi-billion-dollar entities like Ford. He was right then and you're right now.
There are also apt lyrics in a Dylan song that go, "Let's overturn these tables, disconnect these cables, this place don't make sense to me no more." I admit to being the product of an art department, but regret, looking back a few decades, that I didn't save money and instead clean brushes and stretch canvas for someone I admired.
Academia neither wants nor intends to reform significantly, though it might deign to fake it better for cosmetic purposes. It is, simply, corrupted, or rather perverted, and the matter is both wide and deep. Of course, delusions of both intellectual and moral superiority and presumed entitlement do not help.
Ruth Patir's real problem is that no Jewish artist can show art without being a Jew--and there's the rub.
Regarding the museum situation in Portland, been there, done that--and still angry over it after all these years. The principal and key thing about a museum is what it offers the public in terms of art, not the building in which it does it. If the art fails, no facility of any kind can compensate for that. I'm not talking in the abstract; I've seen this movie before, and it was not only a dud but, to my mind, a crime.
PMA has a rock-solid historical collection at least, which is not something you've witnessed in Miami. Like most woke museums they're embarrassed about it, but the work will outlive the curators. Nevertheless, whether they've blown the goodwill of the community to too great a degree to recover new-building momentum before the next recession remains to be seen.
I wasn't just talking about the permanent collection but also what the museum puts before the public, which need not belong to the museum. And yes, I expect "they're embarrassed about it," when they should be embarrassed about their embarrassment.
Amen and pass me a torch.