On the opening of the Olympics, I had to take a moments pause. The average Olympian (while I may say average, know that's still a mean feat. (I am so sorry for the puns...)) isn't able to train/prepare for the Olympics without assistance. But the United States government and various big businesses (and a host of erstwhile sponsors)provide the means and ways of allowing an athlete to hold a job and prepare for his/her competitions. Most major schools offer scholarships for athletes. All of this, it got me a-thinking. I won't, for one minute suggest these peoples don't deserve scholarships and such. I think of athletes with a high regard. I am pretty sure there is a cultural prerogative in the United States to perceive athletes as the paragons of humanity, and I find it hard to rise above that cultural pressure.
All of this leads me to saying what I want to say, which is, why don't we have a similar mindset for artists? Would it be so difficult to rework the patronage method?
Okay, well, think on that for now, chew up and down, and I am going to listen to my good friend Jenny's play be read. Go visit her at theoffcenter.com Tomorrow, I will be looking at answering her post, The Big Questions.
Cheers.
4 comments:
It would be nice if they offered Tax Breaks for Artists like they do in Ireland. That would certainly help, if only in a small way over a long period of time.
The average American no longer wants the the reflective glass of the theatre's mirror held up, they are afraid of what they will see.
Instead of seeing life as it is people tend to look beyond the daily, the average, the real to the onceinabluemoon, the extraordianry, the ubelievable.
How could the patronage system work if people are too afraid to invest in themselves?
how to get beyond the economics...
then think about scale--how many athletes actually get that kind of support?
Okay, first, I will address Scuzzy's comment: tax breaks would be nice. But not really enough. I would venture a guess that most artists don't earn enough to really pay much in the way of taxes, and certainly not enough that a percentage break would make an impact on their lives.
Second, Miss AViewFromTheWings: I would argue that it is the natural state of the human to not want to look at oneself, and as far back as we look, the wealthy (who have always been the patrons) have not liked to peek into the true reflective glass. The task of the artist was to allow them to look at others, and see themselves without feelig bad about it. Look at Shakespeare's treatment of Richard III in order to appease his chief patron, Her Royal Highness... Contemporary patronage would be along those same ideals. Of course, there are some wealthy people who might relish the chance to have an assault on their ideals and senses, but we all like to think we are right...
Finally, Mr. Anonymous, yes, the economics are somewhat horrid. The number of athletes is relatively high up there, the Olympics team is quite large, and if you include the athletes who don't make the team but still receive funding for training, and then add on the coaches and staff responsible for the team, you start to get a larger number. The bigger question for me isn't "professional" artists receiving compensation (thought that would be nice) but the idea of the scholastic. How many athletes receive a free education? Now how many artists?
Post a Comment