the XD vs hi-point was an analogy of life with art vs without.
the XD vs hi-point was an analogy of life with art vs without.
A forced analogy. While you've asserted it several times, you've not demonstrated that this bill means life without art. It's just hyperbole to drive the discussion.
You just don't get it. This isn't about art being taught in schools. It is about the Arts Council. For whatever reason you simply believe that the Oklahoma Arts Council is the beginning and end of Arts being taught in our schools. That simply isn't the case. I am an artist myself. My wife is an artist as she does oils and watercolors as well as being a women's clothing designer. I have been creating and teaching pottery for years as a hobby. I have done copper art for years. I was in the band during my public school years as well. I also have a doctorate in a field of science. The Oklahoma Arts Council had absolutely not a single thing to do with either me or my wife's arts endeavors. She is part owner [along with about 30 other women] of an Art Gallery in OKC. The Oklahoma Arts Council had not a single thing to do with any of this.
I am personal friends with Betty Price and have had these debates with her over the last 40 years. Betty Price and her supporters are good people with good intentions, but the majority of my friends and I simply disagree on their value.
Look, Oklahoma City and Tulsa can support their own public arts projects and I think that is wonderful and the way it is supposed to be. But the idea of the Oklahoma Arts Council doing the art education in the Oklahoma Public School system is a joke.
That $4,000,000 would be better spent in our public schools than on an Arts Council run by a bunch of old foggy women who are out of touch with reality.
I am personal friends with Betty Price and have had these debates with her over the last 40 years. Betty Price and her supporters are good people with good intentions, but the majority of my friends and I simply disagree on their value.
Look, Oklahoma City and Tulsa can support their own public arts projects and I think that is wonderful and the way it is supposed to be. But the idea of the Oklahoma Arts Council doing the art education in the Oklahoma Public School system is a joke.
That $4,000,000 would be better spent in our public schools than on an Arts Council run by a bunch of old foggy women who are out of touch with reality.
Not bad.
DaVinci was a great artist and a great mind?
Tell me who was the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Arts Council when he and some of these other great artists were learning their trade?
Tell me who was the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Arts Council when he and some of these other great artists were learning their trade?
Yeah, actually I do "get it." We pour more money into public education now than at any point in history, and the product is worse than ever. It is a dysfunctional government program and it needs to cease. By 'it' I mean public education in its current form, not just finger painting.
Finally somebody that gets it. ^^^^
lol at the idea that if the government doesn't subsidize some part of the market, it will cease to exist.
In a capitalist system, its existence will be determined by how much value people place on it, as determined by how much of the product of their own labor they are willing to voluntarily expend for it; rather than how much of their neighbors' wealth they are willing to take from them with force to support it, as happens under our current kleptocratic system. The moral distinction should be obvious, as should the system which provides the more efficient allocation of resources.
Purely as a matter of culture, I think that the whole notion of "gubmint art" is obscene. And having the patronage of the arts be determined the way bureaucrats allocate funding has a degrading, rather than an uplifting influence on culture.
In a capitalist system, its existence will be determined by how much value people place on it, as determined by how much of the product of their own labor they are willing to voluntarily expend for it; rather than how much of their neighbors' wealth they are willing to take from them with force to support it, as happens under our current kleptocratic system. The moral distinction should be obvious, as should the system which provides the more efficient allocation of resources.
Purely as a matter of culture, I think that the whole notion of "gubmint art" is obscene. And having the patronage of the arts be determined the way bureaucrats allocate funding has a degrading, rather than an uplifting influence on culture.
It's funny to see those against funding the Arts Council use several arguments that could be used against their earlier arguments for our states subsidies of a ton of energy industries under the same guise "if we don't pay those companies subsidies, they will go to other states that do".
Haha - Capitalism works when it's for me, but F@$#! your cause.
(for the record, I'm not for the state providing the Arts Council with funding - I'm just making an observation)
Haha - Capitalism works when it's for me, but F@$#! your cause.
(for the record, I'm not for the state providing the Arts Council with funding - I'm just making an observation)
Similar threads
