Maybe yes, maybe no, but I find it hard to argue that French funding of art in the 18th and 19th centuries had many negative effects.
Anyway, I think Dana Gioia is doing an excellent job. I went several years to the National Book Festival that Laura Bush and the NEA hosted on the National Mall, and thought it was a great event.
I'm always doubtful when I see that reading is "in decline." How do we know? I have never once seen anyone put forth the numbers for how many minutes a day people spent reading 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, etc. What are we comparing it to? If there is a decline, there must be a standard against which we're measuring.
When I was growing up, my family went to the library every week, and all five kids plus my mom got an armload each. We weren't typical, though. I didn't have friends who went to the library all the time. I'm just wondering if there is research from then showing how much people read 30 years ago, as opposed to now? And if there is, why isn't it cited as a comparison?
Well, I reckon it depends on what you mean by reading.
What you read, why, and in what format.
A lot of people read off the internet, and whereas I'm kinda dubious about the value of much of that kinda thing, it still is reading. And I'd say the percentages are still pretty high in all likelihood, if you count the internet.
In addition I now read a lot of the things I read from recorded, unabridged books on CD. Because I simply don't have time to read all of what I have to read on print. I read out of six books every week, one science, one religious, philosophical, etc. (not counting my Bible and study materials related to that), one biographical, one professional (Intel, crime, military, invention, writing, lab work, cryptography, etc.), one business or a foreign language or on art, and one fiction. I listen to three or four books a week on disk, on various subjects, usually about half non-fiction and now about half fiction (I didn't use to read any fiction except comic books for about 20 years or so, but now I'm back at it). I therefore finish between six and ten print books per month, but counting recorded books I can often finish between 15 and 20 books per month, but rarely take notes out of the recorded books, and that is the chief liability to recorded books in my opinion. But I'm working on that.
Then I have to read white papers, theory papers, articles and so forth related to my professional and business pursuits, as well as just accumulating materials for my research files and libraries. And scientific and technical papers and articles and what not. Most of which I read from magazines or journals or off the internet (which I despise doing, but I do anyways). I listen to about two or three lecture series per month, instead of reading them or attending them (I go to about three or four live lectures a year, if I can swing it), but that still counts in my opinion. (By the way, synchronistically I just finished a lecture on A Canticle for Leibowitz) Then of course I've got to read and edit and rewrite what I write, compose, invent, design, etc. as well.
Truth is, in my opinion, there is simply too much to know to read everything nowadays on paper, and the lag time is too great between what is discovered and what can be put on paper for paper to be the chief medium of choice. I still read mostly on paper as per volume, but that's probably just habit.
I'm still working on a much better kinda book myself, because I think books are far too limited based on what is known, can be known, etc.
So I'm with HENNINGER there
And books have a lot of competition.
Which is good. Competition is good, and books should get their share from other media though I still think the book is the best vehicle invented thus far for storing and disseminating information, especially complex clusters of data, information, or intelligence.
This all kinda reminds me of something my old man asked me once. He said, "Son, why do you think there are no more Einsteins?" I replied with my young boy observation that a Leonardo or a Newton or an Einstein doesn't come along but once every few centuries or so. Maybe once a century or so.
"No," he said. "It's because nowadays there are so many of em that no single one stands out anymore."
The older I get the more I realize how probably right he was.
I reckon the same can be said of the way we do things.
The telephone was awesome when that's all there was. but with cell phones, and PDAs, and laptops, and televisions, and radios, and GP systems, and the internet, communications ain't what it used to be.
And so if the question is do people talk on the telephone as much as they used to, I suppose maybe not. But if the question is do people talk less than they used to, that's probably a moot quetsion when you consider all of the ways that's actually getting done.
The only think I remember from taking a semester of French.
And I have a lot of problems with the French. But French funding of art is not to be compared to American funding of the arts.
The American Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to take tax money and spend it on the arts.
So whatever benefits there may be to doing such a thing, if it exists at all, is a moot topic. The government doen't have the authority to take out of my wallet to commission a painting, play, statue, musical or whatever.
Ok, I did the homework and went to the NEA site to see what the comparison is:
"The study also documents an overall decline of 10 percentage points in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, representing a loss of 20 million potential readers."
Sorry, I totally don't know how to put a link in.
Still, they are talking about "literary readers." Does this mean they wouldn't count someone like me, who reads voraciously, but primarily biographies and memoirs?
depending on who you ask, the government doesn't have the power to take tax money and spend it on anything at all.
Good thing we're not talking about that so I don't need to talk to whoever feels that way just now, do I?
Depending on who you ask we should just shred the Constitution and make the Koran our governing text.
Don't really see how considering that helps at all with the topic of tax funding for the NEA but, hey, I could be wrong!
11.29.2007 9:45pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
They need a crisis to justify their continued funding.
Again, when your livelihood depends on "fixing" things that fail, you tend to see a lot of failure around yourself.
I'd be thrilled if the NEA were abolished altogether. It's not the government's job to fund "culture."
Maybe yes, maybe no, but I find it hard to argue that French funding of art in the 18th and 19th centuries had many negative effects.
Anyway, I think Dana Gioia is doing an excellent job. I went several years to the National Book Festival that Laura Bush and the NEA hosted on the National Mall, and thought it was a great event.
When I was growing up, my family went to the library every week, and all five kids plus my mom got an armload each. We weren't typical, though. I didn't have friends who went to the library all the time. I'm just wondering if there is research from then showing how much people read 30 years ago, as opposed to now? And if there is, why isn't it cited as a comparison?
What you read, why, and in what format.
A lot of people read off the internet, and whereas I'm kinda dubious about the value of much of that kinda thing, it still is reading. And I'd say the percentages are still pretty high in all likelihood, if you count the internet.
In addition I now read a lot of the things I read from recorded, unabridged books on CD. Because I simply don't have time to read all of what I have to read on print. I read out of six books every week, one science, one religious, philosophical, etc. (not counting my Bible and study materials related to that), one biographical, one professional (Intel, crime, military, invention, writing, lab work, cryptography, etc.), one business or a foreign language or on art, and one fiction. I listen to three or four books a week on disk, on various subjects, usually about half non-fiction and now about half fiction (I didn't use to read any fiction except comic books for about 20 years or so, but now I'm back at it). I therefore finish between six and ten print books per month, but counting recorded books I can often finish between 15 and 20 books per month, but rarely take notes out of the recorded books, and that is the chief liability to recorded books in my opinion. But I'm working on that.
Then I have to read white papers, theory papers, articles and so forth related to my professional and business pursuits, as well as just accumulating materials for my research files and libraries. And scientific and technical papers and articles and what not. Most of which I read from magazines or journals or off the internet (which I despise doing, but I do anyways). I listen to about two or three lecture series per month, instead of reading them or attending them (I go to about three or four live lectures a year, if I can swing it), but that still counts in my opinion. (By the way, synchronistically I just finished a lecture on A Canticle for Leibowitz) Then of course I've got to read and edit and rewrite what I write, compose, invent, design, etc. as well.
Truth is, in my opinion, there is simply too much to know to read everything nowadays on paper, and the lag time is too great between what is discovered and what can be put on paper for paper to be the chief medium of choice. I still read mostly on paper as per volume, but that's probably just habit.
I'm still working on a much better kinda book myself, because I think books are far too limited based on what is known, can be known, etc.
So I'm with HENNINGER there
And books have a lot of competition.
Which is good. Competition is good, and books should get their share from other media though I still think the book is the best vehicle invented thus far for storing and disseminating information, especially complex clusters of data, information, or intelligence.
This all kinda reminds me of something my old man asked me once. He said, "Son, why do you think there are no more Einsteins?" I replied with my young boy observation that a Leonardo or a Newton or an Einstein doesn't come along but once every few centuries or so. Maybe once a century or so.
"No," he said. "It's because nowadays there are so many of em that no single one stands out anymore."
The older I get the more I realize how probably right he was.
I reckon the same can be said of the way we do things.
The telephone was awesome when that's all there was. but with cell phones, and PDAs, and laptops, and televisions, and radios, and GP systems, and the internet, communications ain't what it used to be.
And so if the question is do people talk on the telephone as much as they used to, I suppose maybe not. But if the question is do people talk less than they used to, that's probably a moot quetsion when you consider all of the ways that's actually getting done.
With da internet, I shuer doubt peple read much anymore.
What a powerful blow I must have stuck for you to resort to brining up the French!
I am truly sorry for forcing you to do that.
The only think I remember from taking a semester of French.
And I have a lot of problems with the French. But French funding of art is not to be compared to American funding of the arts.
The American Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power to take tax money and spend it on the arts.
So whatever benefits there may be to doing such a thing, if it exists at all, is a moot topic. The government doen't have the authority to take out of my wallet to commission a painting, play, statue, musical or whatever.
"The study also documents an overall decline of 10 percentage points in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, representing a loss of 20 million potential readers."
Sorry, I totally don't know how to put a link in.
Still, they are talking about "literary readers." Does this mean they wouldn't count someone like me, who reads voraciously, but primarily biographies and memoirs?
I'm not sure what counts as "literary."
depending on who you ask, the government doesn't have the power to take tax money and spend it on anything at all.
Good thing we're not talking about that so I don't need to talk to whoever feels that way just now, do I?
Depending on who you ask we should just shred the Constitution and make the Koran our governing text.
Don't really see how considering that helps at all with the topic of tax funding for the NEA but, hey, I could be wrong!
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.