|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 15, 2024 12:02:02 GMT -5
B) How much a country supports the arts isn't indicated by those numbers that the NEA provided. How much Americans support the arts is measured by the number of self-supporting artist we have relative to the rest of those countries. If by THAT measure you prove that we are yet again inferior (as we are with health care and climate awareness and gender sensitivity ... as we appear to be by every other woke measure under the sun) then perhaps we are due the scolding. I suppose "scolding" is a matter of reception--the vibe I get from that NEA document is mostly explanatory, though obviously with an eye toward advocacy. One of the through-lines is that organized arts support in the US is decentralized (the point of the opening pie chart). In any case, the document is from 2012, so linking it to current hot issues (particularly anything "woke") is a bit of a reach. Now about that "open market by which most artist/craftsmen are thriving" from the original post. The two areas I know well are literature and music, and while there are certainly practitioners in both who thrive and more, there are overwhelmingly more for whom the day job (or the spouse who has one) is the only way to avoid poverty and/or have medical insurance. Without CMAB grant money, the Folk Society would not be able to mount a 19-concert season. In fact, without grant support, there would be no acoustic music in St. Cloud beyond tip-jar or play-for-food gigs. (In pre-grant days, concert overhead was carried by the music-loving venue owner and artist pay was entirely from ticket sales. Now we offer decent guarantees and maintain a cushion for concerts that don't break even.) The local Chamber Music Society operates on a similar model, though with much more expensive artists and a correspondingly bigger budget and array of public and private funders. On the literary end, I can guarantee that just about nobody makes a living writing short fiction (as for poetry, it is to laugh), and even producing "commercial" novels is unlikely to generate a living wage.* I'm not a big believer in public support for individual writers, but the free market is no friend to the scribbler. Gainful employment that offers a bit of space for writing--or even subsidizes it, as some universities do by hiring writers to teach in MFA programs--is about as good a deal as most writers can expect. And despite the number of self-publishing writers who claim to have made decent (or even big) money, I can guarantee that most of them are doing about as well as poets, financially. And the ones who claim to have built writing careers are spending at least as much time in marketing and other functions once carried out by the publisher as they do in writing. Being an indie novelist means also being an indie agent, editor, proofreader, and designer--or contracting out those functions, which reduces income. * We've been tracking this for a good 40 years and are personally acquainted with a number of professionals. C never counseled her students to expect to make a living writing fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 14, 2024 21:29:56 GMT -5
I can't say much about academic arts grants, since what I see* are entirely state/federal (Minnesota state-wide and regional and NEA/NEH), plus private foundation and corporate programs. If fact, aside from artist-in-residence situations (which are basically faculty appointments for artists, often short-term), I don't recall any university-based direct-to-artist funding--though there are various kinds of programmatic support (concert/drama series, museum/gallery shows, speakers). And just in case I'd missed something, I looked at the NEA's How the US Funds the Arts and found no mention of university-based funding of the kind done by arts councils and foundations. www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/how-the-us-funds-the-arts.pdfWhich doesn't mean that the attitudes common in university environments aren't also found in the official arts-funding world. But then, those values (and anxieties) have spread across much of our public-policy/social-attitudes space. When I fill out the application for the Granite City Folk Society community arts support grant (administered by the Central Minnesota Arts Board), there are sets of questions about what demographic segments we serve--ethnicity, age, (dis)ability status. These are in a part of the application form marked as informational and not used to affect the award--nor does the GCFS membership and target audience profile (old and white) seem to affect our success--we have gotten full (modest) funding over the 14 years I've been writing the grants. I suspect the most important factors in our success are our modest needs (all volunteer, nearly no overhead, no paid staff) and the fact that 75-80% of what comes in goes back out to the artists we book. Of course, GCFS is one data point, and I know that elsewhere there are grant applications that make appeals based on X or Y identity group or cause, and that there are private philanthropic foundations that focus explicitly on under-represented groups. And a few years ago, the Bush Foundation turned away from arts funding altogether in favor of social-action causes. But then, it's their money, not yours or mine. (Both Bush and McKnight Foundation money came from 3M-based fortunes.) It's probably worth discussing the virtues of individual-artist vs. institutional support from public funds, but even institutional grants wind up supporting individual practitioners and support people--and even non-artists, like venue owners or caterers or stage-hands or equipment-renters. And I wonder about the problem of art practices that require serious capital investment. How much does it cost to set up a kiln? * I do the seeing through C's grant-applications efforts and my own grant writing for the Granite City Folk Society.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 14, 2024 11:49:19 GMT -5
This is a topic worth unpicking--which is to say, it's actually a family of topics, some of which are mostly about the "arts" proper (and the reasons for those scare quotes are part of that discussion), some are about economics, and some about the role of public policy/politics/private action.
I don't have time to do all of that unpicking right now--I have to get ready to spend several hours making "art" at a jam hosted by a for-profit enterprise (a tap house) for no money. But the subtopics I would unpick include how and to whom public money is distributed and how qualifications for and the benefits of that distribution are measured. Some of these questions are not unlike those asked of other public activities and institutions--schools and libraries, for example. Then there's the history of the economics of artistic production and consumption (to use some bloodless and rather reductive terminology), which needs to parallel examination of the role of "art" in general.
But playing starts in just over an hour, and my guitar and banjo aren't going to tune themselves. So more later.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 12, 2024 19:04:57 GMT -5
I have a lot of ancestors from the 17th century. No idea who they were or where they lived, but I'm sure were some because, well, here I am.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 12:12:14 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 11, 2024 12:12:14 GMT -5
Dan Kennedy's take is interesting and useful because it is a point-by-point examination of specific claims and it (as we used to have to do with math problems) shows its work. Which doesn't mean that Kennedy's take is 100% right, only that it can be field-stripped and checked for accuracy and rigor. That is what I value in analysis/commentary/op-ed writing. Emotive language and snarkiness are optional ("Fox News, Murdoch’s 800-pound gorilla, reported took a pass on it"), but they're not required. One does like a little sauce with the dry stuff of precise examination, though.
BTW and TBH, I do resonate with big chunks of Berliner's complaints about the internal NPR environment, since it resembles the parts of the university environment that have gotten even more liberal-guilty-sentimentally-righteous in the last few years.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 11:48:47 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 11, 2024 11:48:47 GMT -5
Then why, in the context of this discussion, bring into question the source if not to tie the article to it and thereby discredit the article? Not to beat this to death, but The Free Press is expressly an outlet for journalists who believe that other outlets are biased or otherwise compromised, and founder Bari Weiss is pretty famously an "Intellectual Dark Web"* contrarian. I also suspect, from her work history, that she does not much like being an employee or subordinate, which has led her to devising her own platforms and being her own boss. And there's nothing wrong with that--it's as American as pizza. (Sorry-not-sorry if that sounds flippant. I'd rather make bad jokes than get all wound up over stuff that I can't control.) So to repeat my point: The Free Press is not the first place I'd go for disinterested analysis, but I don't dismiss Berliner's account of his workplace because of the venue he chose to publish it. Nor does that venue validate it. * For an interesting take on that, see Jonah Goldberg's NatRev piece: www.nationalreview.com/corner/intellectual-dark-web-bari-weiss/And Weiss's own take: www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 10, 2024 20:52:39 GMT -5
One novel thing he did was a butt neck joint epoxied together. Probably one of the worst ideas there could be. Wonder if Prine’s instrument ever needed a neck reset? That's how Steve Cloutier did his neck joins as well. I've had mine for 30 years next spring, and so far, so good. When I asked Steve what he'd do if the guitar needed a neck reset, he said he'd just saw it off. I doubt that it will be necessary in my lifetime.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 16:52:22 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 10, 2024 16:52:22 GMT -5
John, I form my understanding of what you believe from what you actually post--there is no "likes of" you. Just you.
I can hear from actual climate deniers, science deniers, election deniers, misogynists, anti-vaxxers, homophobes, and bigots without leaving the St. Cloud city limits, so when I hear their ideological-cultural cousins so described in "the media," I know how to compare the labels with the actions. I can tell a slur from a descriptor.
And there is a distinction to be made between accepting the accuracy and good faith of Berliner's account of the NPR environment and not finding The Free Press the first place I would turn to for a reasoned analysis of cultural-political matters. As for the "likes of" crowd, read through that comment thread and tell me that some of those labels don't fit some of the posters.
BTW, the press didn't "turn on Israel"--the Israel's current right-wing coalition government did the turning, toward actions that please the worst side of Zionist-nationalist ideology. My reading is that Hamas perpetrated a monstrous crime that was designed to provoke an over-reaction, and Netanyahu & co. gave them what they wanted.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 14:04:24 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 10, 2024 14:04:24 GMT -5
The answer is, you don't go to just one place. In fact, spreading out beyond just the news is more than useful--it's necessary for making sense of, say, what's going on in the Middle East or infectious-disease control or gender matters or even AI stuff.
BTW, lefty-guilty news shops are not the whole problem. Big chunks of the audience are gullible, angry, and NOT all that well-informed about the subjects that surround current events. When "do the research" means "read some Facebook posts, watch some YouTube videos, and listen to Joe Rogan," we're in deep shit.
Edit: I inserted the crucial NOT that Bill caught. Gotta work on my proofreading skills,
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 11:43:06 GMT -5
david likes this
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 10, 2024 11:43:06 GMT -5
I still listen to NPR, along with BBC, and subscribe to the WaPo, NYT, New Yorker, and Atlantic, and follow the likes of Reuters and Forbes. I like the WSJ (outside of their op-ed page) and the Guardian. I'm leery of sources like The Free Press for reasons clearly visible in the comment thread to Berliner's essay.
And I have no reason to question Berliner's account--I'm thoroughly familiar with the guilt-and-shame response* that is the lefty version of the anger-and-resentment response that is characteristic of the righty end of our culture. The double-whammy of Trump's election and the George Floyd murder reinforced the liberal-guilt syndrome (which has annoyed me for most of my adult life) and sent much of the "left" into a tizzy of overcompensation, especially in those parts of the culture that were already "liberal." I have limited patience with identity-driven policies, even though I sympathize with people who have had to put up with bigotry and condescension. (No, not conservatives--they've been whining all the way to the bank and the Federalist Society for years.)
So I'll buy Berliner's description of an insufferably oversensitive politico-moral climate at NPR--but I'll also observe that the right was bitching about NPR and the MSM and the lefty academy long before this current lefty moral panic.
* Related to the examination-of-conscience practice that reinforces the Catholic Church's psychological control machineries.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 9, 2024 13:03:33 GMT -5
Guild has been acquired a couple of times, but not, as far as I know, by venture capitalists. The current ownership is Yamaha, which, like previous owners Fender and Cordoba, is actually an instrument-making outfit. Which does not, I suppose, mean that the funding didn't somehow come from the venture-capital world--just that Guild is not necessarily burdened with a bunch of debt that its new ownership will somehow shed while stripping all the assets for a quick return.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 8, 2024 17:46:55 GMT -5
Been rainy and overcast here since yesterday, and even though it wasn't actually raining at 2 pm, there was enough heavy cloud cover so that the sky and ambient light just looked like it will at 7:30 tonight, just before sunset. Then it got back to normal gloom. Nothing like the clear-sky partial eclipses I've seen, which are a bit spooky. But given how dry it's been around here, I'll gladly take two or three days of rain over a viewable eclipse.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 6, 2024 13:56:14 GMT -5
The Folk Society (and First Presbyterian Church) hosted Mike Dowling last night--the first time we've managed to book him. A really pleasant, laid-back concert with a good bit of interaction with the audience despite the size of the venue. We had chairs set up right in front of the sanctuary/stage, but Minnesotans still are reluctant to sit up front in church. (At Bo Diddley's you can't get very far from the stage and stay inside the building. It's cozy.)
Mike has two more local gigs before taking off for summer-camp season, and I'll be looking hard at driving for one or both. Almost certainly to the Creek House concert in May.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 3, 2024 15:53:48 GMT -5
Why not just get one that reads "Key my car right now"?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 2, 2024 17:25:36 GMT -5
Joe Flaherty from Pittsburgh makes his career in Toronto and names his daughter Gudrun. Is this a great country or what. (Canada, too.)
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 2, 2024 14:27:35 GMT -5
Peter, I'm not in a position to know the details of your particular situation, but what I've seen in St. Cloud--since well before Obamacare--has been consolidation of at least two kinds. One nominally non-profit organization (CentraCare) has hoovered up nearly every medical practice and specialty, starting with the local hospital and extending to small primary-care practices to imaging/radiology to pharmacies to nursing homes.
The practice of our original doctor--48 years ago, he was one of the hot young internists in town--was acquired by CentraCare, and he seemed to me to become increasingly impatient with the management overhead and retired a bit early. I quite liked his (also CentraCare-employed) successor, but I was also annoyed by the big-organization stuff, so we switched to a smaller-but-substantial group and were quite content, until they sold themselves to CentraCare. Now, CentraCare is very good at medical stuff--everybody we've dealt with has been competent and pleasant, and the hospital's reputation is very high (especially for cardiac care). Nevertheless, despite improvements in its record-keeping system (our old doc and I went through the teething period of electronic-records adoption--"You're not diabetic. How did that get in there?"), the business end still feels like a big bureaucratic machine. And the protocols for something as straightforward as an annual exam mean that the doc has about 20 minutes with me, and should I ask a question that's not on the checkoff list (and I'm not Medicare patient), it generates a separate office-visit charge. First time that happened, I'd asked about my blood pressure and found a $285 charge for what was supposed to be a covered annual checkup. Arguing with the billing people did no good--it was coded as a separate encounter and billed accordingly.
I doubt that much of that has anything to do with Obamacare or low Medicare reimbursement. Though the rules and rates that result from negotiations with insurance companies might. And that doesn't address the effects of private-capital acquisitions of ERs, ambulance/EMT services, and various specialty practices (anaesthesiologists, for example). (Dental and veterinary practices, too.) What all those have in common is the view of medicine as a surefire way to make lots of money from a market in which demand is essentially infinite.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 1, 2024 18:24:24 GMT -5
Actually, I'd trade the pot for a second kitten. And an extra decade or two of life to raise them.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 1, 2024 18:03:42 GMT -5
I'll take the kitten and some pot, thankyouverymuch.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 1, 2024 15:04:32 GMT -5
Addendum: "Red line" political/moral positions are always going to be problem points in setting policies and regulations. The underlying problem is where and why exactly one sets those red lines. I understand the absolutist nature of some of them--the life/death and human-status issues behind some anti-abortion positions, for example, or (to a lesser degree) the binary-gender views affecting the treatment of transexuals and non-binary identities. But other factors lead some politicians to take red-line positions, and some of them are pretty clearly attempts to cater to factions with particular material or political-power interests. And holding matters X or Y hostage to unrelated issue Z strikes me as dysfunctional--but then, the farthest-right rump faction of the House GOP isn't interested in function.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 1, 2024 14:04:21 GMT -5
Some issues can't and/or shouldn't be compromised. Abortion is an example. You either allow it or you don't and there really isn't any middle ground to be occupied. With respect, that's not really the case, except for those whose position is that the product of conception (that is, a fertilized egg) must never be removed from the maternal body by human intervention. In fact, the very meaning of "abortion" is not singular and undebated. (I won't expand on that last statement--the range of positions is easily researched.) Aside from the matter of the moral and legal status of the termination of an otherwise successfully-proceeding pregnancy, there are non-trivial questions about prenatal development--the progression from zygote to embryo to fetus, the point at which various structures appear, the point of viability--as well as philophical/moral/theological questions about personhood and rights--including risk-benefit calculations and the possibly conflicting rights of fetus and mother. So legal/ethical arguments about abortion are neither simple nor binary.
|
|