wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Nick Gillespie was - in typical "libertarian style" rude and obnoxious.

I live in the most "libertarian" state - Nevada - and there is no culture here, except T & A.

The Nevada Arts Council has about 2 pennies to distribute annually, which is why the local art museum closed, the symphony cut programming, the local dance companies shortened their seasons and the biggest draw is the mob museum.

The grand sum total of all arts giving in the US by governmental agencies would fund about 12 minutes of the war in Iraq.

Many people have complained about Nick's argument against the government funding the arts. But not one of these bleeding heart geniuses has articulated WHY the USA gov't. should put any $$$ into any type of painting, sculpture, drama, dance troupe, etc. What criteria would the gov't. use to accept and/or reject the myriad of applicants who would apply for this $$$??

Nick comes across as neither a philistine nor a "failed artist". Maybe he shouldn't talk over the other person, but he has a right to his opinion much as the people who support gov't. funding for the arts.

You want to know what Art IS or OUGHT to be?? ART is the selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments (Ayn Rand). Apply this definition to any artwork, and you'll determine if the work is "good" or not.

Nick was trying to provide a serious philosophical reason as to why government should bot fund the arts. However, it's good to know that performance groups get some funding, and not some of these weirdos who call themselves artists. If certain individual "artists" got the $$$, they would waste it.

Ayn Rand's "Romantic Manifesto" is remarkable book on what Is or OUGHT to be. Does anyone know that Charlton Heston defended the N.E.A.? You want to see a really good Libertarian artist. His name is Charles Imbro. Look up his work on the net.

The libertarian argument, as stated on the show, that "the government should not force me (through taxes) to fund art that I didn't choose to fund" is preposterous on its face. Try replacing the word "art" with "highway construction" or "a war in Iraq" or "tax breaks for hedge fund managers". What makes art so unfortunately special that we can even have that argument, but we never hear "the government should not force me to pay for highway construction that I didn't choose to fund"???
The government, through tax policy, encourages home ownership. That means they are foregoing money that otherwise would collect. That means renters - who don't pay off a mortgage - must be paying a higher proportion of total tax. They are, without any choice, paying for the government to encourage home ownership. We the people who elect the government must think encouraging home ownership is worthwhile.
Similarly, having art in every community is a worthwhile goal that government chooses to encourage

Why is it that, whenever there is a challenger to government funded arts they always bring up the handful of artists labeled as 'controversial'. What about the non-controversial type of work? A simple example would be a dance company which may exposing the youth to the classics such 'Swan Lake'. etc.?

I believe that art is essential to communities everywhere. It's been around for over 2000 years and has been a way of progressing civilization as we know it. The nine percent of government funding is not a way for government to control what is happening within the art itself. I also agree with the previous commentor who stated that if an artist doesn't want to be publicly funded, he can just not apply for a grant. As for whether someone doesn't want to pay for art, I know that various Jersey school systems are falling apart due to people 'not wanting' to pay for education, leaving children in the dust. I believe that art is a requirement for us as human beings as much as education, and therefore that institution should be funded as education should.

Speaking as the director of arts non-profit myself, every single way we get money comes with strings, complications, hoops, etc whatever the form of contribution. Nick's arguments are simply libertarian dogma and in short, crap.

It's too bad this program didn't work out to be a constructive debate. If Mr. Gillespie is so devoted to his libertarian principles he should go live in Colorado Springs where the mayor recently suggested citizens volunteer to bring their mowers to the public parks because the city is broke.

This is pathetic. Our government support is already so tiny our country is a joke among developed nations. We fund war up the wazoo, but the only culture we can share with the rest of the world is our commercial culture - which is sometimes quite wonderful - but that makes us different from EVERY OTHER COUNTRY with the kind of wealth we have.

This is too serious and complex a subject for the Smackdown format and wasn't well served by it.

Perhaps Nick should try a visit to Europe or India where the arts are funded by the governments and though the artists aren't making much money at least they have the chance to do their art work without starving to death.
We have no idea here in the US how many great artists have had to give it up for financial reasons - how many can wait until they are 50 or older to make even a pittance selling their art?
I find too too many of the "artists" in NYC come from very wealthy families who essentially buy their kids shows and jobs in the arts.
GIVE ME A BREAK NICK!! We give pathetically little to the arts as it is.

Nicks line of thinking is a dangerous one (and his line of argument is a bit disingenuous), it's an argument that calls for the removal of funding for all things done in the public interest, the public good. Removing funding from the arts is one step away from removing funding from parks, monuments, libraries, and everything else that creates vital society and country. It's important to say it and say it loud, the libertarian view is a selfish one.

NG; sheez, what a bore. You can tell he is wrong by his style of argument alone.

All funding comes with strings attached, whether it is from a tickets sales, individual, government or corporate donations. All I heard NG saying is 'government is bad okay', over and over and over again. He should go & test out his fantasies in Somalia, or the Afghanistan boondocks, where government is small.

I'm the producer of Elevator Repair Service, a non profit theater ensemble (previously featured on Soundcheck) who receives significant government support, which we absolutely need to make our work and pay our artists. We do rely most heavily on individual support, through, for instance, special events....Like one that Nick Gillespie might really enjoy - it's this Monday May 3rd, with Frances McDormand, Lili Taylor, Fred Armisen and Frankie Faison reading "AMERICAN FICTION: loved, banned & mythologized" - works by Wharton, Twain, Cather, Poe & Melville. I'd like to personally invite Nick Gillespie put hsi money where his mouth is and to buy a ticket at $1000 - if he does, I'll pay for his train ticket from Washington. More local folks might like to just buy a $30 ticket. www.elevator.org

Nick's arguments were weak and his general way of expressing his ideas was particularly unpleasant. I wonder how he came to form such distorted views of the role of Art in society,and why if he claims to have dedicated his life to study literature he ends up sounding suspiciously like a frustrated artist.History has shown that failed artists could be very dangerous and bitter towards the rest of humanity.To Hear him was frankly...Scary.

The Arts increases the ability to learn, raises test scores, reduces crime, heals the sick, creates economic stimulus for communities, and employes tens of thousands of people in the state of nj. Mr. Gilespie wants to throw the baby out with the bath water just because on rare occasioins misguided public administrator fueled by interest groups take acception to certain kinds of art.

Public funding of the arts is not welfare. Its our tax money being given back to us. If not to the arts then why not cut funding to 'faith based' social agencies, tax credits for religious and non profit institutions.

Mr. Gilespie is short sighted in his reasoning, focusing on an investment in art which is much too small as it is. In addition the funding to NJ arts was held at last years level which is significantly lower than funding for prior years. And note that arts funding in NJ is revenue raised soley by a tax levied on hotels and which is a dedicated revenue source which ultimately has not shown itself to be really dedicated at all.

i agree with michael #55 too / ten fold.

If the government is truly censoring anyone, while offering funding or not, then we need to take a hard look at our government.

I disagree with, at the least, one aspect of Mr. Gillespie's argument. He seemed to infer that public funding can compromise the art-making itself and allows the government a say in it- Jesse Helms, etc. This is an age-old potential that is always there whether funds come privately or from wherever.The only factor in that context is the integrity of the artists themselves.

michael # 55 you are spot on!

being from one of the most generously funded countries in the world, new zealand, i left the country to come to the usa where arts are really thriving becasue the artists are "struggling/going against the grain"... when the government start funding arts and an infrastructure grows, because of this, people get jobs to give out grants and write guidlemines etc. the result is disasterous.... i saw a decoade go by and new artists coming through as cookie cutter artists and also grants being taken and mis-used... it all created a very false sense of the culture.

The difference between the arts and other enterprises is that if you want artists to be capitalized, as a business, it will force them to aim their art towards the middle, as a higher brow, avant-garde art forms, reach small audiences in their time, only to be the prevalent form later.

I would vote for pulling all direct funding of the arts and putting that money into arts education in the schools. Without a public that appreciates the arts no amount of funding is going to help the arts

wow,anti-atlantic yards. finnally i agree with nick on something..

Nick's position (and a long-lasting one, unfortunately) against arts funding due to it being out of the control of the public at large, i.e. people may disagree with the actual art being funded is the most FLAWED and ridiculous argument ever. There are SO many govt. funds going towards things the taxpayers DON'T want, but we should nitpick the arts????
It's a hypocritical and short-sighted position

So Far this country has spent 987 billion dollars on two wars.
Thousands of my tax dollars have gone into fighting these endless battles; wars that I do not believe in. We have no say in the matter of course.
Georgia by the way has spent 28 billion......and they can't afford to fund the arts for it's citizens..... shameful!

This country and Mr. Nick is on the wrong track!

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH PUBLIC FUNDING OF THE ARTS!!!!!
1: I work for two arts education organizations and all the documentation provided to funding organizations ( government and otherwise) contributes valuable evidence for the positive effects of arts education on students and thus promotes inclusion of arts education in public school curriculums.
In other words without public funding of the arts we probably wouldn't have art in the schools.
2t: State and Federal arts funding is essential for small communities outside of major cultural centers.
Without government funding it would be unlikely that small towns would be able to raise enough money to have arts programs of any kind.

What would Nick say about more funding for arts education in place of arts funding, this might produce more private donations and make up for the 9% loss if not more.

gov't money is our money at the end of the day nicky, no?

An enormous amount of money was given to the making of the Sistine chapel-that money could have been used to feed the mouths of hungry citizens-but it wasn't. Would it be better to have used that money for the poor, or maybe something useful to society at that time? Is the Sistine Chapel still worth it? This is just one example. Look at how art has helped us in documentation of history.

Public funding does help, but government is what holds the power of history.

Contesting that the artist is controlled by the interests of the grant is, really, no different when considered in the context of a capitalist economy. If the artist is not controlled by a grant, than the artist is instead controlled by the interests of the market and the idea of art as a commodity.

The age of Renaissance-era patronage has departed, and grants became necessary in a free market system.

If the government has money to fund a war -
they should have it to fund the arts -

If they can bail out the corrupt practices of banks (a bailout which ultimately resulted in the suffering of all of us) -
they can fund the cultural life that gives joy and perspective to humanity - and that HELPS the economy.

I believe this gentleman does not know ANYTHING - he obviously does not participate in a dynamic cultural life -

Nick seems to have little experience with the arts community. He should get out of DC and spend more time in NYC on the ground level. Meet artists! See how hard they work and how far they stretch a dollar! Why do you think tourists come to NYC?

Very little goes a long way with public funding - it has a huge impact on individual artists and drives a large part of the economy in NYC.

With out funding cultural areas such as theatre become overly commercial and have to answer more directly to the almighty dollar. We already suffer too greatly from this in this country. I have never commented on sound check before but find Nick's monopolization of this conversation the perfect metaphor for this.

Nick argues that government funding makes artists "captives" of the government. But what about corporations and foundation giving? Those are also hugely important sources of arts funding, and organizations end up accountable to them to. Does Nick have a problem with that?

And his whining about people's tax dollars going to things they don't want to fund is so idiodic that it's hard not for me to turn off the radio. I don't like that my tax dollars go toward indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" and bombs dropped on civilians, Nick. Seems to me that those are far more problematic than arts grants, but somehow I doubt you would protest them so much! This is how government works. If you have such a problem with government arts funding then bring it up with your elected officials or stop paying taxes (that should go over well).

There are 54,000 arts-related businesses in New York State and the arts employed 340,000 people in 2008-2009 (American for the Arts Cultural Industries Study for New York State 2009). Additionally, the taxes generated by the arts industry in 2005 put $1.2 billion back into New York State, factoring in income tax, sales tax, taxes on visitor spending and business tax.

We could NOT do this without Public funding!

So, now you're gonna let this guy say that Arts are fine if you can afford it... so it's only for rich people?????

I dont want to found another war, yet I have to. I have no cultural background to defend in this wars. So the world accuses me of being a member of a war loving culture, yet the same people that makes me fund wars wants to kill my culture.

Sounds like Nick is so lacking in confidence in his position that he won't ever let Nina or the moderator even finish their comments. Nick, if you are that confident in your position, let them finish their statements. You might ever learn something if you actually listen.

If we can fund unnecessary war we can fund art. Art is creation and creation is the opposite of war.

Why does Europe not have a problem with state funding for the arts? Oh yes, socialism!!!!Only in the US, do we tie ourselves in knots insisting that every penny of government spending must please every tax payer. But only when it applies to the Arts which are used as a punching bag for all social problems. We never see the larger good.

Ayn Rand - Artist LOLS!

I wish more money was going to the arts. Then maybe I wouldn't have to bust my ass working three jobs to get by.

Art is not a sacred activity - solely. Nick is not only an "over-talker," but he is also going down a slippery slope regarding where tax dollars go. If art organizations are going to be considered a "luxury" then so is war, so are environmental issues, so is education.

The government grant process - though tedious and often not worth the staff time to prepare for the dollars awarded - is valuable.

What does Nick think "good art" would be then? The art that he likes? The art that exists that no one knows about because the artist does not have the capacity to present it to anyone?

Also, it seems that Nick's perspective comes predominantly from that of the sole artist rather than that of the thousands of nonprofit art organizations who make art accessible from individual artists to a large public.

I will be blogging about this at www.colossians323.wordpress.com after the show!
(It's a new blog, so please come by and check it out.)

when you live in world of literal fundamentalist geekdom , you live in gillespie land. subtlety de damnned!

Nick Gillespie's constant responses are really getting oppressive. Shouting-down arguments or contrary positions does not help promote his side.

If society doesn't fund arts (collectively thought the government) all arts we'll have on display is silly sculptures in front of corporate buildings.

Artists make on average $25k per year. Near the poverty level. Artists who receive grants benefit the community around them by contributing to their cultural experience. Art is good for everyone, and needs the support of state funding.

I received 2 NJ State Council on the Arts fellowships for sculpture and never had to report to the State government as to what I did with the money. I used the award for my work exactly as I wished to, no strings attached.

What about boards that censor-if he thinks the government-censors what about board members who don't like a show-I just experienced this-give me a break the government is nothing compared to people who feel that because they are writing a check they can censor a show

OK Guy, I don't want my money going toward weapons of mass destruction but it does. When we can control where we want to put any of our tax dollars then you can make the argument that people shouldn't have to give money to the arts.

Johhhhnnnnn help us; keep this guy to his aloted 24 hours.

Ayn Rand created art? Please.

As an arts lover, as long as governments continue to spend my tax money on sports stadia, I welcome the help for the arts.

This is such a tired argument - people have to pay for LOTS of things through their taxes that they don't necessarily want - this is a democracy - the majority decides - you don't get to pick and choose!

I don't want funding for tobacco subsidies, can we please stop my taxes from funding that????

If the gentleman objects to ideological ranting and raving, why doesn't he stop practicing it himself. STOP THE FILIBUSTER.

I don't want War, can I stop funding the military????

Anyone who thinks that government arts funding makes artist patsies of the state is ridiculous. Arthur Miller, Mark Rothko,Robert Mapplethorpe- not exactly government stooges.

Is he unaware that during the great depression the government support of the arts created the system of arts that makeing it possible for the arts to be available to the broadest american population. Without that he would not have grown up with the arts in american as he said. And such the support is needed.

Usually these segments are fun, but Nick seems to be taking the smackdown a bit seriously.

He's so condescending...John get a hold of things...

Please ask your guest Nick Gillespie to "stay on topic, be civil, and be brief."

He talks like all Art is funded by the govt. It's just a small part.

See ya at BAM real soon, Nick. Jeez.

Please get someone who can take this guy... he's going on and on and there are great responses to all his BS

Nick Gillespie, please shut up.

Government funding for the arts is win-win! If you don't want it or don't need it, don't apply for it. But lots of artists DO need it, and many of them are the cultural engines that spark economic recovery.

does nick think that the way the funding is done is the problem,or is he against funding in any form whatsoever?

Ever notice how few libertarian artists are out there?

You stop her to question her, but you didn't make the guy prove "disaster" ??? What disaster?

A question for the guests: How key are partnerships among local arts groups to overcome funding losses and maintain services to the community?

If government can't fund the arts then it can't fund any other cultural aspects of life. No war monuments, no tax breaks for churches, no tax break for giving to non-profit art institutions.

gillespie- yeah,the sacred alter of the cult of me ,myself and i libertarianism. don't buy a thing this man says...........

State funding may be a small piece of an arts organization's funding pie, but it confers legitimacy that culture matters in our society. It's what separates us from other members of the animal kingdom.

If we're gonna cut Arts funding, then how about cutting tax breaks to big businesses and wall street firms, subsidies to tobacco farmers (to not grow any) and corn farmers (to make kids fat), tax breaks to home owners, science programs in universities throughout the country... the list goes on and on. Why are we just targeting Arts?

though not the biggest fan,i respect hip-hop,perhaps as a cultural/political phenomenon,more than a musical aesthetic.
since there is a very direct[i think] correlation that can be drawn between the cutting of funding to public school music programs,and the advent of DJ turntableism and rapping as a compensatory form of musical expression. for those who hate hip-hop and had anything to do with school budget cuts that destroyed music programs,you've got your deserved karma. Dante's got a hot turntable waiting for you.........