"The last person on earth I want involved in deciding how our museum should operate is my idiot congressman."

Our idiot congressmen (Jesse Helms was the head idiot leader) were determining what was legtimate art in the early 1990's, leading to aggressive attacks on the National Endownment of the Arts, withdrawal of federal funds, and legislation prohibiting any federal funding of "obscenity". Remember the Republicans' "Contract With America"? proposed huge cuts if not elimination of NEA.

Sue,

I know it's hard to put opinions across on forums but I didn't read Scarlett's post the same way as you did - I read it that in your home country (US/UK/France) then you should have access to the 'facilities' with some allowances not available to foreigners.

I (probably you as well) can afford to pay the 'going rate' to enter museums, some people can't. We pay higher taxes, we should pay higher entrance fees.

Inicodemus,

If you are visiting another country should you have the same rights as the local students/unemployed whose parents and other family members have paid taxes to help maintain the museum??? I personally don't think so, to overcome this - visit on the 'Free days'.

ClevelandBrown wrote
<<Our government does not have the capability shown in past years by the Soviet government to control artistic expression.>>

Your govt. may not, but corporate America certainly does

Geordie

hello Inicodemus,

so I will join the others to give some remarks on things you did not ask:

Have a nice trip and enjoy yourself in Paris.

You are right, as you save an airfare and accomodation, this is a chance not to be missed. Well done.

>>>>
Our government does not have the capability shown in past years by the Soviet government to control artistic expression.
>>>>

cleveland...can you support your theory that your more private model of the arts results in more artistic freedom of expression as compared to a more public, more government funded model?

you fall into a common trap with this misconception. People who don't know assume that if it gets government money, the content is overly influenced by the government. this is wrong.

i would argue that the more privatised system leads to less expression. here in the UK, there are much less instances (if any) of politicians playing policitical football with the arts. How many times have you seen US politicians pander to their conservative constituency and rile up the people ..."This is what your tax dollars are paying for ..." and proceed to hold up some "offensive" artwork. then vow to irradicate the use of public money for such "trash". Helms, Giuliani, etc, etc. the exact same artwork that giuliani fussed about was shown in a public museum in london without even a word.

as another poster pointed out, private business supporters influence the content.

also, in the privatised model, you see the dumbing down of art...the pressure for museum directors to put on a "hit" that will bring in the much needed admission dollar. i don't want to get into a discussion of "what is art" but it is fair to say that we have seen many US museums put on shows with questionable artistic value that the directors know will increase traffic at the ticket counter. ralph lauren's car collection at the MFA in boston. herb ritts photos of celebrities, wallace and gromit exhibits, etc. what next...disney exhibits, rides for the kids?

there is questionable art all over. i just saw some at an exhibit in germany and i also see it all the time here in london. however, most of this is "art" that takes a chance and fails rather than safe "art" that will pull in the masses. as a case in point, the public supported National Theatre in london takes more artistic chances because they don't have to worry about making a profit. the commercial theatres in london mostly stick with the safe stuff that they know will bring in the tourist dollar and the bus trips from outside of the M25.

Walkinaround:

I think we have fundamental differences on how things work. You absolutely close your eyes to the instances where governments have controlled arts; I suggest you recall the Nazis and the Soviets, there are certainly others. You decry that the US conservatives cut NEA funding and criticize certain art, and say government involvement would prevent that; apparently you don't understand that to do those things, you have to control the government! Are you saying that to insure freedom of artistic expression, we should give more power to the conservatives who now control our government?

The idea that corporate power controls arts is laughable, as are all these theories about corporate conspiracies. Certainly many corporations support the arts, but the idea that the corporate powers conspire together to control the art world is beyond belief, without a shred of supporting evidence. The most a corporation would do, beyond purchasing art for its own use, would be to decide which of the competing organizations will receive their support, and possibly where their officers will donate services. I make that same choice when I decide where my charitable contributions will go.

I'm not enough of an elitist to talk about dumbing down of art. I look at art, or listen to it, and decide whether I like it or not. Even if I don't like it, I would never say that it is unworthy just because I don't like it. You apparently are comfortable drawing a line between worthy and unworthy art; perhaps some study of art history would help you realize that many artists who are now ackowledged as masters, were initially decried as unworthies.

Incidentally, I read further on the subject of tax breaks for museums, and I think they are less extensive than I had thought. Gift shops and restaurants run by museums do pay tax on their revenues. Employees of the museums do pay taxes on their earnings. Property taxes, in the US, are local in nature, so their are hundreds of jurisdictions that individually decide that question; I found no federal law barring the imposition of property taxes. Earnings on the endowments of the museums, which can be substantial, are not taxed, as long as the museum uses a certain percentage of the earnings to run the museum (if they hoard earning, then they are taxed). Donations to the museums can, to some degree, be used by the donor to decrease the donor's tax liability, which is an indirect benefit to the museum, as it encourages donations. Admissions fees are not taxed as income, as long as they are used to operate the museum.

Interesting as this may be, it is far removed from what is appropriate in this forum, and tiresome to read as someone has widened the margins, so I shall post no more on this topic.

I'll jump in before this gets booted...and make it travel related as well.
I just started reading "Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister" which is set in Holland, after finishing "Wicked" which is set, of course, in Oz. One of these countries I have visited in my travels, the other only in my dreams. One character in the book is an artist. A prominent theme - a perennial, not novel - is that while the noble concept of art for art's sake endures, artists require food, clothing and shelter, too.
So, OP - go, have as great a time as possible, enjoy art wherever you find it, and hang on to frined like this one.

frined?

lol, yes, frined, don't you have frineds, viaggio :D

My luck is that I am the one that ends up being the frined .. I want one that pays for me sometimes!!

I'm a senior citizen and no, they give discounts to 18 to year olds and under in most. A few places give senior.

Clevelandbrown

By the way, if you are concerned about being able to make apples to apples comparisons concerning unemployment then refer to the OECD Standardised unemployment rates whihc can be found here:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf

well if you weren't so exhausted from being always on the road you would recognize that as a cleverly embedded test for dyslexia. congrats, you passed. ;-)

I put the "sexy" back in "dyslexia."

I saw that on a shirt and couldn't resist. . .

what happened to the museum part?

"The last person on earth I want involved in deciding how our museum should operate is my idiot congressman."

This isn't the only model, just as the American model of democracy isn't the only viable one. Major Australian museums and galleries are also government-funded, and the only way in which the government can influence their policies is by funding and the appointment of board members - but because of these institutions' public support, such attacks carry a political cost. Likewise the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which apart from its TV and radio networks operates six major symphony orchestras, is government-funded and doesn't run advertising, is government-funded. Public, board and staff pressure ensures that yje corporation is both professional and politically even-handed. Parenthetically, I'd add that our health system is also closer to the European model, and produces better overall outcomes at much lower cost than the American system.

That said, there's no perfect approach and I wouldn't argue that ours is fault-free. But to imply that the only alternative to the US approach is a species of Stalinism is, with respect, plain ignorant.

Has anybody got the answer to inicodemus' question yet?

Or would giving the answer - as opposed to what you'd like the answer to be - be too boring?

Cotswold Scouser, I believe a few people gave answers to the best of their ability. Did you give an answer?

cotsworld,

If you're bored and impatient with this thread, why re-visit it?

Scarlett and alya - it is always interesting to hear how others interpret written responses and you are so right, this medium has its drawbacks.

Should domestic residents have allowances not owed to foreigners in museums? Should museum administrators try to execute Mr. Marx's "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" ideal?

One can't argue for a given admission system being 'fair' until we have established what is fair and what isn't. Ditto for what is 'affordable'.

Regarding what is fair: Too often, social sponsorship plans meant to address inequities penalize the working poor. They also tend to disproportionately assist those who happen to live inside the urban centres in which are found most services of any kind. It is moot if the admission is free if one cannot afford to commute to the city in the first place. Yet resources for sponsorship aren't endless - how to allocate these resources?

Another problem lies with the definition of 'needs.' One could argue that the benchmark for 'needs' might be what things are necessary for a society to ensure its residents have 'abilities'. There's a long list of needs, and they need to be prioritized. I'd argue that the priorities include health care and job training, on the grounds of what alternatives are available. The poor of the world can and do create their own art quite well (speaking of looking down one's nose...) but sadly they have been less effective at coming up with an effective alternative treatment for AIDS, for example.

Of course this thread is way off the original tack. But it sure has been interesting.