Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by ElJay370, Aug 8, 2019.
There’s costco in the Netherlands?
Costco sells toilet paper in boxes now?
Would you pay $25k for this?
She's pretty sure she's hot, a few more drinks, and she'll be certain of it.
Damn BB, I thought I recognized that style of dance. One of your personal pupils no doubt!
if that person actually gets someone to pay 25k for art depicting a message that is transmitted several times a day through radio, tv, and billboards, as well as multiple other sources then we need to start a new thread about how the arts is overvalued.
I would have to agree that athletics are crazily over-valued and professional sports teams seem to excel at getting taxpayers to fund a lot of their costs. I'm not much interested in professional sports, but a lot of people, obviously, really care about their teams.
When the owner says "build me a new stadium or I'll move the team," you might tell yourself "well the team is part of our community; it builds civic pride and brings people together, and so sure, float a municipal bond series that we will all have to pay back."
The arts do the same thing, but much much more cheaply.
Wikipedia lists the twelve most expensive sports stadiums--a whole bunch in the US came in at a billion dollars; the new Yankee stadium cost 1.5 billion dollars: the NY state council for the Arts had a budget of 49 million last year. Arlington Texas spent 1.48 billion to build a stadium for the Dallas Cowboys.
Just for comparison, the entire budget for the National Endowment for the Arts last year was 155 million.
Aw crap, I thought we were done here. Hmm. Ok.
So to wrap up:
1. You don't like professional sports
2. You think athletics are over-valued.
3. You are totally cool with the NEA having a butt-load of our money
4. You think art is undervalued?
Did I get that right?
The issue of taxpayer supported stadiums has nothing, NOTHING, to do with "team spirit" or "civic pride." A football stadium is a super-charged, mega-hypersonic, cash extractor. It is similar to a clown with a shop-vac at a party; siphoning up all the money from our pockets and giving us balloon animals and candy in return. People make their own consumer choices about where the tipping point is between the entertainment it provides and the money it demands.
Be that as it may, a football stadium is a huge and somewhat complex enterprise. It takes lots of people to build it, lots of people to maintain it, and lots of people to staff it. Lots of hot dog buns and iron girders. The surrounding area of a football stadium, let's call it the blast zone, also feeds off of the people who go in and come out. Lots of money is changing hands on game day, and really, a pretty good chunk of economic energy is off-gassing during the down times as well.
Like the football fan, governments are reevaluating whether their participation in building a stadium is a wise idea, whether the tipping point for that investment is really where the owners say it is (hint, it's not. Nor is it always a good deal). The conventional wisdom used to be that jumping into debt for one of these was the smart money because it injected tons of cash into the local economy. Nowadays, thanks to science and stuff, that conventional wisdom is "evolving."
Increasingly, governments are telling the owners to pound sand. The San Diego Chargers are currently pounding sand in LA. The Cardinals pounded sand in St. Louis for a number of years, before deciding that the sand is much better in Arizona. My beloved Colts , formerly of Baltimore, continue to pound sand in downtown Indianapolis. But now they are pounding sand in a relatively new stadium, having been forced to pound sand in an inflatable Yurt prior to that. I think in the near future we will be seeing the Raiders pounding sand in Las Vegas (which seems like a great place to pound sand, but a horrible place to take all your rich young football players who display histories of poor judgement and even poorer will power. Eh, what could go wrong?)
The National Endowment for the Arts has a $155 million budget because we are stupid and don't really understand what they do. What they don't do is put asses in seats. You are shocked that Arlington would throw $1.48 billion in debt at a cash-cow of a football stadium that is brimming with cash. I'm shocked that the National Endowment for the Arts is a thing. So, we're even? I guess? Ugh.
But some of those stadiums support the arts as well. I personally have been to Jerry World twice for music concerts but never been to a game there. The revenue that those stadiums bring in to the local area from out of towners far and away pays the community back for any costs incurred by the construction.
I’m going to ignore your angry tone and suggest that you don’t actually know what the national endowment for the arts does.
Also it’s ok to not like professional sports isn’t it? In various places I’ve lived way more of my tax money has gone to professional sports than to arts. How much of the money generated by sports stadiums goes back to the taxpayers?
You very well could be right.
I think of it is tied to the economy. If incomes stay stagnant so will consumption. If consumption stagnates or starts to decline and/or dwindle then, who's gonna buy?
I've been thinking this about guitar sales. If money's tight, are you willing to spend $500 to $1000 on art, music, music equipment, car stereo, whatever you're into...
And artists do better when they have more customers and demand.
I'm not angry at all. Its more of an eyeroll. Bottom line is that you are perfectly happy to gore my ox, and I'm happy to gore yours. Won't change the cost of an original Rembrandt.
You're argument is a strawman, btw. Sports stadiums and athletes salaries are all cold, hard economics. There's no real moral preening going on there. They generate billions in revenues, unlike the average starving artist. Whether that money goes to the right people probably depends on the deal that's cut. San Diego didn't think it was worth it. Arlington apparently did. We get to grade them on whether they were right.
Professional sports operate under a specific anti trust exemption. See here: https://ballparkdigest.com/2018/06/...lines-to-strike-down-mlb-antitrust-exemption/
It’s a monopoly. Ever wonder why there is only one professional baseball league? Football league? Why they get to own players and “trade” them? Has your employer ever traded you to another company against your will, leaving you with no other employment option? If you are a professional football player, and refuse a trade, what happens, most of the time? You CAN’T refuse a trade. It’s a trust, a monopoly.
It’s odd to regard professional sports as an example of the free market. It’s a trust with a specific legal exemption form laws that apply to other businesses, basically because SP Justice Felix frankfurter liked baseball, and it thrives on massive public subsidies as described in the links above. Basketball and football have a “farm system” made of of unpaid labor.
Meanwhile it’s fun to point to examples of oddball art selling for lots of money, but how is that not an example of the same terms you’re using to defend sports?
An argument about taxes seems likely to get too political so I’ll say no more on that, but I’ll argue that sports are way more subsidized than arts.
And you'd be wrong.
Even college football brings in more money to major universities than they spend. Ironically, the jocks are now giving their lunch money to the nerds.
So, what you're saying is that sports are highly over valued in our culture?
What is that sports does again?
Throw balls back and forth and try to knock each other down, stuff like that?
Or charge admission for patrons to sit and watch men throw balls and knock each other down?
You are right, our culture does indeed seem to put huge value on pro sports.
And the artist, whether or not average or starving, what do they do?
Fill galleries and museums, stuff like that?
Charge admission to see old art or sell the new art?
Where you point out that sports are so much more highly valued in our culture than art, aren't you confirming what the OP said?
Or are you more suggesting that the importance of watching men knock each other down chasing balls is vastly greater than the importance museums and galleries- to culture, so really art is less valuable to culture than is sports?
I am a music teacher by day, and that treats me just fine. However, for more than half of my career I pulled in more money through three small businesses: performance, studio work, and private lessons. I eventually had to make a decision when I started my family, and my career in education was the winner. It was a hard choice though. I can say though, I did make a comfortable living as a musician and had studio contacts booked out a year in advance. I got to tour with some fun groups and see what life on the road was like. And when I ‘retired’ the recording and performance careers, I was lucky to be picky about the gigs and recordings I participated in. However, this meant taking EVERY gig and recording opportunity for years. It meant practicing my parts like a maniac, and acting like it was no effort at all. You learn the right people to meet and offer services, and don’t thumb your nose at an opportunity. Always acted professional, showed up early with quality gear in tow and made sure nothing took more than two takes so the sound engineers would recommend me to other clients. I studied different styles on many instruments so if some need country fiddle or classical cello I was ready to do both in the same session or gig. I miss it immensely. I say the above not to toot my own horn, just to say you can make a living in the arts. But it just doesn’t happen. My music degree meant nothing to those who hired me, only my skills and professionalism. It takes time and serious effort. There is a lot of competition, and you need to offer something special. So if you want it than go for it, but don’t think for a second that talent will pave the road to success.
I agree particularly with the current internet hate for the artisans making highest possible quality music gear in limited quantities.
I find that a disturbing trend in society today.
Hate for those who work hard with great care and integrity.
Love for cheap import merch; and of course our favorite sports teams.
Much has been written about the importance of art to a healthy society.
The arts and society as a whole seem to both be in poor health of late.
I've learned here today that the only things of 'value' are things that generate money. Life has no other system with which to judge things worthy of our attention, so money money money.
And the beta male love of watching a bunch of guys in matching outfits chase a ball around, taking a child's playground pastime very seriously.
My career was about all music, all the time. I played in bands, jazz groups, gigging bands, all while teaching guitar lessons for 14 years. I learned tons and tons of songs, styles, technique, and repertoire. By repertoire, I mean an entire body of music of a style. Most people here have done that with certain styles and periods. When I went on to study composition, I had to learn an entirely new repertoire, which took years. Now that I'm back to the blues, another large repertoire to keep up on.