If I am understanding this correctly, a stipulation must exist that only "art forms" consistent with British (or perhaps European) concepts, techniques, materials ect. can be funded. This seems fine to me if the objective of said funding is to promote a greater appreciation of both traditional and evolving nationalistic notions or ideals about art.

Then again, why didn't they simply just state that this was the case?

If their decree is based solely on a notion of superiority at the "us" vs "them" level, IT REEKS!

For instance, what self respecting British curator would even consider the act of refusing to display a vase from the Ming Dynasty?

Cheers!

_gonzo_

Interesting thought, the concept of government funding being the bench mark of what is considered art. This goes to show you what happens when socialistic practices are adopted and applied to something. Very often it is the out cry for justice and fairness from those who think that government is the answer to all problems large and small that brings about government involvement in areas where they should not put their grubby, grasping, self serving, ignorant, dirty, corrupt, narrow minded, uneducated, bureaucratic, self indulgent, self righteous, mean, nasty, and destructive hands. The things they are supposed to help, they control, the things they are supposed to advance, they retard, and the things they are supposed to preserve they destroy. In the end we are left with a mediocre shadow of what came before government got involved that is more repressive than the situation it was asked to assist.

HDI 2007:
2. Norway 0.968 ( 1)
6. Sweden 0.956 ( 1) (social democracy)
12. United States 0.951 ( 4)

Wikipedia:
"The Norwegian economy is an example of mixed economy, featuring a combination of free market activity and large government ownership. The government controls key areas, such as the strategic petroleum sector (StatoilHydro), hydroelectric energy production Statkraft), aluminium production (Norsk Hydro), the largest Norwegian bank (DnB NOR) and telecommunication provider (Telenor). The government controls 31.6% of publicly listed companies. When non-listed companies are included the state has even higher share in ownership (mainly from direct oil license ownership)."

"Norway possesses the second highest GDP per-capita and third highest GDP (PPP) per-capita in the world, and has maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for the fifth consecutive year (2006)."

I dunno, I kinda like socialism...

(sorry for being a tad off topic!)

You might take a closer look at your listings. Norway is 30% more expensive to live than the US and 25% more expensive than the UK--and that's even with "substantial" government support from government owned petorleum reserves. Socialism has its costs...

I have to say, if the US government funds gawdawful "art"--like stuff made from dung--I wonder if I could get a grant to do bonsai...

in my opinion, bonsai is definitely an artform, i mean you can't create a good bonsai if you don't have an artistic eye, thats why you need practice, to learn how to control you tree and make it into something beautiful, an art piece, you are trying to create the illusion of an old tree. Compare this to painting, you use light and dark to create the illuion of depth, in bonsai, you also strive to achieve great depth, and some may say it is just a hobby, or a craft, but then couldn't you argue that painting is just a hobby. And what about sculpting, who decided that was an art and not a craft, you're just using clay to build something. Bonsai has to be an artform, not everyone could do it, it takes practice and experience, you also need to know about color, balance, negative space probably, and flow. THere is a lot to growing and making bonsai. Anyways, since when was there one definite definition of art?

You are of course correct, but in accordance with the direction this thread has now taken, which incidentally is the premises with which it started, it is often the actions and opinions of an organization or bureaucracy that sets the standards for reasons of its own, not always based on logic, reason, or even common sense. The problems arise directly proportionate to the agreed credibility of the above organization or bureaucracy where by something like bonsai will be deemed by "Them" to not be art.

Exactly! Credibility remains the glaring issue. The notion that a bonsai cannot be called “art” unless it is either accompanied by some “innovative” growing technique, or included as part of something else, must be one of an artificial tree because it does not hold water at all.

Stone sculpture for instance, IS considered art. This form has been around since earliest man simply whacked one rock against another (and likely his thumb) until he achieved the desired outcome. There were no innovations until the hammer, chisel, sanding and polishing burst on the scene to rave reviews in all the fashionable scrolls. In the thousands of years since then we have elevated ourselves to the current use of electric and pneumatic tools. Same rock, different…er…whacker. Except for making it easier, did these innovations do anything to qualify the individual finished piece as art?

Of course not!

Whether you painted the walls of your cave with a stick and plant dye, glopped an acrylic monstrosity on canvas with a nylon brush, or shot it from a squirt gun on steroids at 60 PSI really (evidently) doesn’t matter. As with any other art form, what you are presenting is judged and not a set of stipulations for how it came to be. In the end, a good bonsai holds up under and adheres to numerous art principles and can therefore, stand on it’s own merits.

Cheers!

_gonzo_

Amen and well said!

Anyone who has ever seen a Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko painting would probably have to consider that it is (at the very least) possible that the only comment either one of them were making is: "I can't paint".

While many pieces that do seem to tell stories or make comments are considered art, many that do not are also readily accepted. There is no requirement that a story be told or comment be made in order to classify something as art. Expressionists never even attempt this concept with abstracts in my estimation and the same hold true with the subject matter of many photographers.

Bonsai on the other hand often can and does embrace the telling of a story very dramatically. In my view, root over rock and windswept styles are two very compelling examples.

Cheers,

_gonzo_