The Abstract Ideas Of Art

In Montana, the number of artists compared to the number of their civilian labor force is quite comparable. In 2010, a study showed that there were 8,780 artists, 7,450 citizens employed in the information industry, and 6,862 citizens employed in the mining, quarrying, oil industries, and gas industries. As you can see artists make up the majority of their population, even with the economic hardships that many of us face. Because there is high percentage of the Montana labor force that consist of artists, the Montana Arts Council designed a study to see how much artists help and improve their economy. In this study they estimated a total economic impact of over $233 million and 4,273 jobs. Not only do the artists of Montana generate jobs in their own state, but they also generate jobs in other countries. The impact that the arts have had on Montana is significant. The presence of artwork and the quality of life it has brought have increased their economic growth and it continues to improve every day (Montana Department of Labor & Industry). Due to the support of the NEA and its ability to keep funding going to states like Montana, the industry is starting to grow. More and more, art is changing and improving communities and states all over. Without the revenue from the NEA our government would

The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 states that it is up to the Federal Government to assist the local, state, regional and private agencies and artist in developing arts in the communities in several different ways. It also states that the Federal Government is to encourage freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent. Lastly, the Act states that it is to fulfill an educational mission and make widely available the greatest achievements of art “National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965”).

Having posted this on World-Post, which is a news and blog website created through a partnership between Liberal news aggregator Huffington Post and a nonpartisan powerhouse, the Berggruen Institute on Governance, allows for this essay to not get exposed to the pro STEM or anti-arts parties. Sparking up the discussion of reintroducing the arts back into everyday society’s curriculum, you need to direct this essay towards both the audience, and the individuals who have the power to make this change. If Ma bring up a primarily pro-art focused paper, and only shares this piece of writing with mostly fellow supports of the arts, Ma misses the “equilibrium” that he spoke so highly about. If we can’t have both sides of the spectrum be able to analyze and discuss the ideas presented in this paper, then it’s going to be close to impossible to enact any change within society to reintroduce more of the arts back into

Every day we see art whether it is a pattern, sculpture, or even a picture. Art is everywhere. For artists to show their work they would go under the government process of the NEA. This program is wonderful on what they do with art. The government funding of art through the NEA is beneficial which helps art programs increase with money donations, the right to express your freedom, and lastly to show the public what they are wanting to see.

In 1961, Kennedy appointed a Special Consultant on the Arts and made public support for the arts an official policy agenda (Bauerlin and Grantham, p. 6). In 1963 President’s Advisory Council on the Arts was created (p. 7). After President Kennedy’s assassination, President Johnson continued to support Kennedy’s vision of founding a federal arts agency. The next year Johnson signed the National Arts and Cultural Development Act of 1964. This created a 24-member council to “recommend ways to maintain and increase the cultural resources of the nation and to encourage and develop greater appreciation and enjoyment of the arts by its citizens” (p. 15). The Arts Endowment started its first fiscal year with a budget of $2.5 million and a staff of twelve, and its first grant recipient was the American Ballet Theater (p. 19). They provided support to both classical forms of art (such as ballet and opera) and emerging art and art trends (such as pop art and jazz); and provided funding for both established and up-and-coming artists (p. 22). Furthermore, the committee provided support for art education, and archival and preservation efforts such as the American Film Institute (“AFI”) (p. 23).

Art programs in schools across the nation are in danger of being diminished due to budget cuts and lack of funding. Due to budget cuts, “... schools have been relying more on private funds and patrons of the arts to provide creative outlets for students” (Hambek). Because art is deemed as less important than other core classes, budget cuts that have been put into place almost automatically go straight to cutting funds for art

“Art is a nation's most precious heritage. For it is in our works of art that we reveal to ourselves, and to others, the inner vision which guides us as a Nation. And where there is no vision, the people perish,” (Johnson). President Johnson’s speech before signing the Arts and Humanities Bill, which began the National Endowment for the Arts (“Lyndon B.”), was inspiring to artists in all merits. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a federal program that provides grants to art programs, ranging from dance to music to visual art (“About the NEA”). Numerous Americans believe federal funding to the arts is not important, while countless organizations depend on the grants given. Individuals against the NEA believe that the benefits of the

A majority of the nation, up until recent visual and performance art legislation was proposed in congress, hadn't been made aware that they, the taxpayers, were supporting any form of art. It wasn't until the recent attacks on the NEA, an agency designed to fund grants to certain projects, that taxpayers paid attention. The government's funding of the arts is a highly controversial issue that argues some of the most basic philosophical questions regarding the subjective and objective views of aesthetic value.

Fine arts gives students a chance to pour their hearts into something beautiful; a chance to be a part of something that is bigger than just themselves. Some schools are facing financial troubles with the current economy, and one of the first programs they consider cutting is fine arts. The removal of fine arts programs would be absolutely devastating to countless members of the community. Many students would lose their favorite class, in some cases the one class that helps them get through the day, and many teachers that truly care fir the students would lose their dream jobs. Fine arts should not be cut from schools; they build confidence, help with the application of other academic concepts, and even help to prepare students for their

A lot of people think that art can only go as far as a class in school, but in reality there is art around everyone. Art can be a way of life for some people, and for others it is simply just something they pass every single day. What they do not realize is that art can have benefits in different aspects in their life, in children's lives, and even the world around them.

Throughout history there have been many public funding’s that contributed to the world of art. Whether anyone realizes it or not, artists have a lot of responsibilities to try and please the public when they are working for the public. Also, there are numerous regional issues that greatly influence decisions about publicly funded art. Art is very important when forming a sense of nation character, therefore, we should support the public funding of art in America. Art is an important part of society and it can also be a very valuable part of our everyday lives. However, there are many positive and negative effects when it comes to the public funding of art in America. Supporters claim that subsidizing the arts pays for itself. These supporters suggest that the arts are what drive the economy of businesses within a community.

For example, a few may believe that art can “transform dull or rundown public spaces and inspire the people who live and work there” (Create For All). Well, we are a small community with a plethora of situations in mind that I do not think people would even recognize the sculpture. Our city is genuinely unique that we do not need a sculpture to brighten our community. On the other hand, others argue that art “represents an individual point of view that is critical, imaginative, and eye-opening” (Finance and Culture Magazine). Though it may be true, the public art may be altered to the desires of the city council. The art would not be at its fullest potential if the art is only what the council itself wants. There are many other ways we can express ourselves, but by not funding public art.

Another possibly positive outcome of art in the public could be the affect that it may have on the younger generations. If children are being raised in a community where they can see art on a daily basis then I believe it will have a positive effect on their lives by allowing them to learn how to appreciate art and what it has to offer. Art being in the public is also a way to grant people, who do not have enough money to enjoy the luxury of going to a gallery, the pleasure of seeing something aesthetically appealing on a regular basis. It also makes a town more interesting to visit; no one wants to visit a town with not much excitement. I once went to an art festival in Baltimore, Maryland, where they had green marbles ground up and put into the black top roads. This sight alone made my heart race and made this town more exciting. For towns that may have tourism it could be a way to attract to coming there or maybe even staying.

There are generally two types of paintings- representational and abstract. While representational painting portrays recognizable objects, abstract painting does not look like a particular object. Instead, abstract art is made up of designs, shapes and colors. (http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-art/ ) The meaning of abstract art is, in its most simplified form, art that relies on the emotions of the artist and the elements of design rather than exact representation. This broad definition allows artists almost unlimited freedom of expression. Some abstract artists create compositions that have no precedent in nature. Other abstract artists work from nature and then interpret their subjects in a nonrepresentational manner. In other

Public art catches an abundance of attention and the artist receives so much recognition, there’s no need for the government to show it off even more. Instead of the government using their money for art, they can use it on more important things, such as employment and education for people who have no money to do so. With the government investing in art, they will not benefit from it a whole lot. They will be able to show it off to the public but will receive nothing from this.