NationStates Jolt Archive

For the Benefit of Artists
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Artistic | Proposed by: Rotten Guava (http://nationstates.net/rotten_guava)

Description: Asserting that the United Nations has a responsibility to promote both international understanding and the global advancement of civilisation,

Believing that of the factors which define a nation, its cultural achievements are the most lasting and most purely beneficial of all contributions to the world and to itself,

Recognising the importance of certain individuals in the enrichment of national culture and the advancement of global civilisation,

Noting the difficulty of making intellectual contributions in modern society,

Resolving that each member nation be encouraged to establish a fund for the explicit purpose of supporting individuals deemed by the government "culturally vital citizens":

1) Urging that nations evaluate the cultural accomplishments and/or the potential for advancement the advancement of the arts in its citizens and designating the most promising "culturally vital citizens";

2) Further urging nations to establish a moderate fund for the purposes of:
-supporting "culturally vital citizens" to allow them to dedicate as much time as necessary to his or her art
-allowing "culturally vital citizens" the ability to travel to foreign nations for the purpose of education and the promotion of an international intellectual community

3) Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-control or in any other way influence the work of designated "culturally vital citizens"
-establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling
-spy on other countries
-promote the work of any individual over another's

4) Recognising as areas in which lasting cultural achievements often flourishes:
-the visual arts, i.e. painting, sculpture, film, photography, architecture, etc.
-written word, i.e. poetry, prose literature, journalism, etc.
-music
-philosophy
This has reached quorum...but what does it actually do? Aside from the fact that clause 3 is plainly false - this does create a separate class and promote their work over others' - all it does is urge the creation of a fund, which a) is little more than an expansion of clause 3 of Artistic Freedom and b) could probably have been done through the UNEAF anyway.

It's a bit of a shame the first Artistic proposal to make quorum is so thin on provisions.

If the author wants to start their own thread, this one should obviously be locked/deleted. And I claim dibs on doing a bad rehash of 'Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite'!

OOC: I thought proposals had to actually do something. This one doesn't do anything beyond urging us to do nice things for artists (as though they deserve some sort of extra-special treatment).

3) Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-control or in any other way influence the work of designated "culturally vital citizens"
-establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling
-spy on other countries
-promote the work of any individual over another's

How could this proposal be used to spy on other countries?

Well other than the fact that this resolution doesn't do anything. We would state clearly for the record that we would oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty.

I cannot speak on behalf of other nations, but The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick, already has a support program for artists. Its called the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Culture. Which is responsible for the production of art and literature, and other forms of entertainment and education, for the consumption of the masses.

Although we will be interested to see the debate on the floor of the UN as this is the first, to our knowledge, of a "arts" proposal to reach quorum.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Well other than the fact that this resolution doesn't do anything. We would state clearly for the record that we would oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty.
Ha! How utterly ridiculous. This resolution doesn't force a nation to do anything - just two 'urgings' - and from that point of view, surely a sovereigntist would support it, in that it might prevent a resolution that, I don't know, had the tiniest active provision coming to the floor.

I'm not saying we'll vote for this, but if so wimperingly mild a resolution rubs against your peculiarly inane conception of national sovereignty, then there's not going to be anything much worth supporting, at all.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

And I dont see how it will prevent future, more meddlesome legislation either. Reguardless of its mildness. I would prefer to shut it down the first go around rather than have to write a repeal later.

And I dont see how it will prevent future, more meddlesome legislation either.
Formally, through the contradiction/duplication rules. Informally, through the attitude 'we have one artsy proposal, we don't need another'. (Obviously, this wasn't the case with Artistic Freedom, but they are covering slightly different areas - one free expression, one funding and support.)
Reguardless of its mildness. I would prefer to shut it down the first go around rather than have to write a repeal later.
But exactly what provision is it you would feel the need to repeal? In what way does this resolution violate your national sovereignty? You can keep your system for funding the arts, scrap it, or paint it purple and stick in a centrifuge; you would still be in compliance with this resolution because by only urging, it is accepting the possibility that people will not all implement its requests. You could execute all artists in your nation and remain in compliance (with this resolution). It is the very antithesis of an anti-sovereignty proposal.

-- George Madison

Welcome to Kivisto, where the most culturally vital people work in the Uranium Mining, and Arms and Auto Manufacturing industries. We have more people working in police or military forces than in any other aspect of society. Our "culturally vital" people are not artists. We would fund them, and as this has no provision stating that these people must be artists, we will do so.

Granted, we already fund them. We have given our culturally vital people cushy jobs with respectable salaries so that they can best continue to maintain the strengths of our culture. It would only seem rational that any nation that values their culture would do the same in whatever way best suits them, be it with monetary rewards or otherwise.

We will be voting AGAINST, charging the resolution on grounds of flagrant uselessness. Any nation that wishes to preserve their culture can already do these things. Any nation that does not wish to do so shouldn't be pushed to do so, even as an urge. It's just rude.

Well other than the fact that this resolution doesn't do anything. We would state clearly for the record that we would oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty

you know most if not all resolutions or proposals violate National Soveignty in some way or another, its not really grounds for a valid argument.

TBEM
UN Ambassador

you know most if not all resolutions or proposals violate National Soveignty in some way or another, its not really grounds for a valid argument.

TBEM
UN Ambassador

Mr. Ambassador, Im not quite sure I caught your name. The fact remains that there are issues that are of international importance. Most of the resolutions that come before this body; however, do not deal with issues of international importance.

Zyrwick maintains that below the international realm, which is the responsiblity of the UN in its vastness. There are areas of National importance, and subject to national soverienty, as there are issues of sub-national imporance and are subject to the political subdivisions of the nation in question, whether those political subdivisions be cities, republics, provinces, autonomous regions, worker's councils of factories is irrelevent. Then finally there are issues of individual sovereignty, such choices would be do I want to wear my red tie, or my black tie, Do I want scambled eggs and toast or do I want to go to the fast food place for breakfast ect.

The provisons for "culturally vital persons", whomever those might be in any given nature is the responsiblity of either the nation or its political subdivisions depending on the philosphy of the nation.

Zyrwick already provides for its "cutlurally vital persons". They work for one of the two ministries dealing with our culture: The Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Culture, and The Ministry of Education. The MPE&C deals with those things that are commonly called propaganda, where as the MOE deals with schools and teaching such things as maths, language arts, ect.

However, Nations should not be urged to do things they either are already doing or don't wish to do. And to be quite frank if some nation wants to line up all the poets in its country and liquidate them its none of our business.

Now if that same nation wishes to invade our country with said poets...thats a totally different matter.

Alexei Gramiko
Zerwickian UN Ambassador.

I think I support this proposal in theory. Towards that end I think I should not post here. Tata!

Formally, through the contradiction/duplication rules. Informally, through the attitude 'we have one artsy proposal, we don't need another'. (Obviously, this wasn't the case with Artistic Freedom, but they are covering slightly different areas - one free expression, one funding and support.)

But exactly what provision is it you would feel the need to repeal? In what way does this resolution violate your national sovereignty? You can keep your system for funding the arts, scrap it, or paint it purple and stick in a centrifuge; you would still be in compliance with this resolution because by only urging, it is accepting the possibility that people will not all implement its requests. You could execute all artists in your nation and remain in compliance (with this resolution). It is the very antithesis of an anti-sovereignty proposal.

-- George Madison

Specifically Mr Madison we object to this:

-allowing "culturally vital citizens" the ability to travel to foreign nations for the purpose of education and the promotion of an international intellectual community


Which is a subsection of section two. It is the inherent right of nations to determine who may and may not enter their country. Further this goal can be better achieved on a nation to nation basis.

Also to use Kivisto's example where the most culturally vital citizens are in arms manufacturing, or in the police or military....I'm not so sure that the Zyrwickian peoples will be willing to have their army parading thru Revolution Square on May Day....Well unless it was in honor of Communist Unity. Which if my memory serves me correctly won't happen as Kivisto is a capitalist nation.

Alexei Gramiko
Zerwickian UN Ambassador.

Which is a subsection of section two. It is the inherent right of nations to determine who may and may not enter their country.
This proposal does not force you to allow a speck of dust to enter your nation.

-- George Madison

While the Allied States of Probstopia wishes to affirm that we fully support the rights of all nations to determine the proper method of determining who are their culturally vital citizens and we most certainly encourage them to offer whatever support the state sees fit, we must object to the proposed resolution on several grounds.

3) Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-control or in any other way influence the work of designated "culturally vital citizens"
-establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling
-spy on other countries
-promote the work of any individual over another's

Each portion of clause three is problematic in our opinion.

Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-control or in any other way influence the work of designated "culturally vital citizens"

By definition, if a nation selects and funds certain "culturally vital citizens" said nation will be influencing the work even if only by picking the type of artistic endeavors they fund. Who can say that they will not wish to pander to their benefactor if they are depending on their continued support for the continuation of their work?

Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling

Again, if a nation selects certain individuals to fund and leaves others out, they are establishing an elite group. Some will be selected and others will not, for whatever reason and by whatever criteria are applied.

Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-spy on other countries

If member nations are to allow "culturally vital citizens" as determined by other nations within our borders, how are we to prevent a foreign spy from entering if that person is the "culturally vital citizen" of a hostile nation? I can certainly think of a number of nations which would consider their intelligence forces as very "vital".

Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-promote the work of any individual over another's

Again, how can a member nation support certain artists and leave others out without promoting certain individuals? The only way we can see around this would be to establish a fund and distribute the monies equally among all persons calling themselves "artists", which is a poor way of handling this in our opinion.

Therefore, the Allied States of Probstopia will not be able to stand in support of this proposal, much as we value the ideas behind it and encourage all to support the arts as they see fit.

I yield the floor.

Diego Rivera
NSUN Ambassador for Probstopia

Government does not do a very good job of selecting and funding artists. Most governments tend to select artists that support propaganda and nice neat ideas. We do not believe it is in the best interests of the people to have government select who is best among the arts. While we support the idea of general artistic education, it is not in the interest of free expression to push sanitized art for the masses.

We are not interested in giving money to "culturally vital citizens". We would be interested in educating people to create a vital culture of art where the best come forward by their merit, not government sponsorship. Art is about the human condition, and art without struggle tends to suck.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

At this time, we remain undecided concerning this proposal (but we are quite fond of Mr. Kite), and look forward to the author's explanations and answers. In the meantime, we see this proposal as an opportunity to encourage nations to financially support their arts and humanities whether by means of grants, patronage arrangements, or whatever.

To the argument that this proposal doesn't "do" anything. Expressing the sense of the Assembly is "doing" something. Surely you're aren't saying you'd support a stronger resolution that mandated such financial assistance? If such support is forthcoming, I highly recommend the author request removal of their proposal and strengthen it to require such assistance.

If member nations are to allow "culturally vital citizens" as determined by other nations within our borders, how are we to prevent a foreign spy from entering if that person is the "culturally vital citizen" of a hostile nation?How could this proposal be used to spy on other countries?The proscription prohibits nations from appointing spies as culturally vital persons, or requiring such persons to spy for one's nation while visiting other nations... a scenario frequently seen during the mythical Cold War.

And as QoD has already noted, nothing in the proposal requires a nation to admit another nation's artists. The direction of the directive is toward the home nation, urging them to let their artists travel.

By definition, if a nation selects and funds certain "culturally vital citizens" said nation will be influencing the work even if only by picking the type of artistic endeavors they fund. Who can say that they will not wish to pander to their benefactor if they are depending on their continued support for the continuation of their work?And by leaving artists in (stereotypical) abject poverty you're not influencing their work? As with any "mild" legislation, the interpretation is highly left to the individual nation. Whether your implementation would have the negative aspects that you attribute to the original proposal would be strictly up to you. We suspect that the clause to which you refer is an attempt to urge nation's to not place idealogical restrictions on those persons it designates as culturally vital.

Again, if a nation selects certain individuals to fund and leaves others out, they are establishing an elite group. Some will be selected and others will not, for whatever reason and by whatever criteria are applied.Recognition of importance in a humanities field no more elevates an elite than does the UN Economics Prize. (And we're relatively glad the author of this proposal didn't go the way of an Arts and Humanities Prize.) Nothing in the proposal requires a nation to even make the status of such persons public knowledge. If we read minds, it would be our understanding that designation of an individual as a culturally vital person is to be in no way a government endorsement of the message, content or theme of the artist's work.

Nations should not be urged to do things they either are already doing or don't wish to do. And to be quite frank if some nation wants to line up all the poets in its country and liquidate them its none of our business.Your logic is ... interesting. By that reasoning, because some nations already banned military use of bioweapons, the UN had no business extending that ban to other nations. And we would like to be surprised that you turn a blind eye toward mass murder, but alas, we are not.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

My country will probably support this, but we are mildly displeased by the fact that the author seems to consider cultural actors and artists as being necessarily individuals - whose cultural contributions, moreoever, can be clearly distinguished from other aspects of life, society and production.

I would like to remind this General Assembly that, in many societies, such as my own nation's Indigenous communities, art in its various forms is often produced collectively. I would also like to stress that, in many of these societies, such collectively produced culture serves a practical every day purpose, be it ritual or otherwise.

Among the E'te people in my country, for example, body art is a communal practice.

When an entire community is engaged in the production of such culture, how is this proposal applied?


http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/674/christophebocobnd6.jpg
Ambassador Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
PDSRA

I must stand in opposition to this substance of this resolution. While we can agree with the spirit in asking governments to support and promote Arts and Culture in their populations we can not abide by some of the provisions in it.

We agree with our honorable colleagues who have argued that the Government should not be used to decide what art is good and what is acceptable. We believe that is for the citizens of Philimbesi to decide what art they feel is vital.

When you ask a government to make that decision you are 1) asking that government to endorse the thoughts and intent of the artist 2) create a class system within it’s art community 3) Influence the non “vital” artists work in order to attain that the vital staus and funds and 4) denounce a non “vital” artists work by not granting them the status.

We believe that the citizens of our country are more than capable of doing all of those things without the help the government or this ruling body.

Sam Seeborn
UN Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

I am the primary author of this proposal.

First, please allow me to apologise for not realising that I could post a draft on this forum for discussion, first. It is a symptom of my inexperience with NationStates.

However, I do believe I have answers to most of the concerns raised here (unless you are concerned about my abuse of the English language in the proposal...).

This has reached quorum...but what does it actually do?

The primary purpose of this proposal is to recognise artists and their value to members of the U.N. It was intentionally vague when defining execution precisely because I did not feel it was the purpose, nor the right, of the proposal to mandate how a government should operate. The proposal was to establish values and open up the idea of state patronage of the arts.

We would state clearly for the record that we would oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty.

If the United Nations cannot even suggest to member nations that they should value something, be it human rights, the environment, peace, or any other issue, what use is it as a body? The proposal does not force any nation to do anything (as has been observed by other posters in this thread).

where the most culturally vital people work in the Uranium Mining, and Arms and Auto Manufacturing industries. We have more people working in police or military forces than in any other aspect of society. Our "culturally vital" people are not artists.

If that is what the people of your nation believe, then this proposal is not right for you. But how do the miners and factory workers benefit your culture? They support your economy, it's true, but in the eyes of this person, they cannot make a contribution to civilization as lasting and influential as can artists or philosophers.

However, Nations should not be urged to do things they either are already doing or don't wish to do. And to be quite frank if some nation wants to line up all the poets in its country and liquidate them its none of our business.

Obviously, the second sentence is rhetoric, so I will address the first: the U.N. urges nations to "do things they either are already doing or don't wish to do" because it sees that they need to change. In your nation, for instance, how were the artists supported by the MPE&C selected? Are they given assignments by the MPE&C or are they simply given a stipend with which to pursue their own passions? This proposal seeks to encourage nations to change the way they deal with artists.

By definition, if a nation selects and funds certain "culturally vital citizens" said nation will be influencing the work even if only by picking the type of artistic endeavors they fund. Who can say that they will not wish to pander to their benefactor if they are depending on their continued support for the continuation of their work?

Yes, influencing the output of artists is a problem intrinsic to the patronage of art, but not an unavoidable problem. A nation could easily establish a committee of academics and artists to select peers worthy of being supported. And a nation could guarantee support for life, so artists need not fear reprisals for unfavourable art. Conversely, a nation dedicated to influencing the work of its artists is going to do so, with or without this proposal.

Again, if a nation selects certain individuals to fund and leaves others out, they are establishing an elite group. Some will be selected and others will not, for whatever reason and by whatever criteria are applied.

Governments manage to recognise and support individuals without creating a discrete class all over the world. There are many people who receive government grants without becoming a class of their own, because they're vital to science.

Unfortunately, my time is running short. I will finish this post later.

~Rotten Guava

Resolving that each member nation be encouraged to establish a fund for the explicit purpose of supporting individuals deemed by the government "culturally vital citizens":

Ugh! I can just see the Retired Werepenguins Assembly of Senators debating this. And since this is script frenzy month I'll give you a summary of that debate in script form:

SENATOR A: I object! The Anti-Tax party in the Congressional Council would never allow us to establish a fund to support individuals, especially given the vague notion of "culturally vital."

SENATOR B: I'm not so sure. Isn't sushi "culturally vital?"

SENATOR A: I suppose.

SENATOR B: And would not sushi chefs be considered culturally vital citizens?

SENATOR A: I suppose.

SENATOR B: And doesn't the Sexy-Sushi Party have more members than the Anti-Tax party?

SENATOR A: You have a point.

SENATOR B: ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE SEXY SUSHI PARTY!

Meanwhile I'll abstain. I prefer not to get involved in politics.

Mr. Ambassador, Im not quite sure I caught your name. The fact remains that there are issues that are of international importance. Most of the resolutions that come before this body; however, do not deal with issues of international importance.

Granted that some of the proposals that come before the UN are not of international importance, but i think saying that most of the resolutions are not internationally important is an overstatement.

Zyrwick maintains that below the international realm, which is the responsiblity of the UN in its vastness. There are areas of National importance, and subject to national soverienty, as there are issues of sub-national imporance and are subject to the political subdivisions of the nation in question, whether those political subdivisions be cities, republics, provinces, autonomous regions, worker's councils of factories is irrelevent. Then finally there are issues of individual sovereignty, such choices would be do I want to wear my red tie, or my black tie, Do I want scambled eggs and toast or do I want to go to the fast food place for breakfast ect.

Let me wipe the drool off of my face, but before that i have to say this proposal isn't actually forcing you to do anything, it just urges.

The provisons for "culturally vital persons", whomever those might be in any given nature is the responsiblity of either the nation or its political subdivisions depending on the philosphy of the nation.

This proposal leaves that designation to the dicretion of the nation itself.

Zyrwick already provides for its "cutlurally vital persons". They work for one of the two ministries dealing with our culture: The Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Culture, and The Ministry of Education. The MPE&C deals with those things that are commonly called propaganda, where as the MOE deals with schools and teaching such things as maths, language arts, ect.

Then you're one step ahead of the game but that doesn't mean every UN nation has a program like that. This is just giving them a little push to do so if they want.

However, Nations should not be urged to do things they either are already doing or don't wish to do. And to be quite frank if some nation wants to line up all the poets in its country and liquidate them its none of our business.

its not like the UN is sticking a gun to anyone's head with this...

Cookesland for the time being abstains (even though its not at vote yet )

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Interesting proposal, and although it doesn't really do much of anything in regards to substance, I am sorely tempted to support it just to see certain ambassadors faces turn purple and screech on about how the evil UN has violated their national sovereignty.

While this is in itself a thoroughly worthwhile hobby, it is not sufficient reason for me to do anything but have mild fantasies about how certain folks would view the Phobosian living sculptures that most interestingly have included large numbers of naked, nubile men and women, lubricant, plastic tubing and a large mountain yak.

I compliment Mr. Madison for his insightful commentary.

Regards,

~S

We don't like the idea of encouraging governments to pick and choose who they consider to be "culturally vital citizens". In our estimation, governments should not be involved in making those kinds of choices, or in saying one group of citizens is more "culturally vital" than another. We know this resolution wouldn't mandate anything, but frankly, we don't even want to encourage such thinking. We don't think the UN should be encouraging it, either. Opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We don't like the idea of encouraging governments to pick and choose who they consider to be "culturally vital citizens". In our estimation, governments should not be involved in making those kinds of choices, or in saying one group of citizens is more "culturally vital" than another. We know this resolution wouldn't mandate anything, but frankly, we don't even want to encourage such thinking. We don't think the UN should be encouraging it, either. Opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

If we allow governments to decide who lives and who dies, who gets money and power and who starves to death on the streets, I figure it ain't much of a stretch to allow them to decide who's "culturally vital". Inane, yes, but not a stretch.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'm an artist and I dislike this proposal.

Government does not do a very good job of selecting and funding artists. Most governments tend to select artists that support propaganda and nice neat ideas. We do not believe it is in the best interests of the people to have government select who is best among the arts. While we support the idea of general artistic education, it is not in the interest of free expression to push sanitized art for the masses.

We are not interested in giving money to "culturally vital citizens". We would be interested in educating people to create a vital culture of art where the best come forward by their merit, not government sponsorship. Art is about the human condition, and art without struggle tends to suck.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

This legislation will in no way make government the primary method by which a culture selects it's prominent artists, or artistic works. In open markets the market will remain the primary determiner. Whether the currency is physical, digital, or merely repetuation based, no culture will allow it's art to be too strictly controlled by a government for too long. People die for a lot less, I find.

I reviewed the stat adjustments for the selected category. This just barely squeaks in as legal. For other potential authors, please keep this in mind. If this was any limper, it would have been deleted for category violation.

In other words, this is a weak category to begin with; its effects are similar to a 'Mild' strength in another category, as opposed to Environmental:All Businesses, which is akin to a 'Strong' strength.

[/modhat]

OOC: Damn. Well, there goes that hope.

This legislation will in no way make government the primary method by which a culture selects it's prominent artists, or artistic works. In open markets the market will remain the primary determiner.

Clearly it hasn't dawned on the Ambassador yet that this turns the "open market" of art into a managed market. Government may not force artistic taste this way, but it can put one hell of a skew on the selection.

I'm against this on the grounds of sheer limpness. It does nothing useful, and potentially prevents something useful from being done later. If it forced nations to fund culturally vital people (and groups), defined the term more closely to prevent abuse, and was proof-read to get rid of the more egregious crimes against English, then it would be a different story.

I have exchanged telegrams with the creator of this proposal discussing some of the more cosmetic issues with the proposal, and I have encouraged them to, if this does not pass, come here to discuss and go through the process of, rebuilding this proposal even if all they get out of it is the learning experience. From what I have heard, they are in favor of said action upon the failure of this proposal once it reaches the UN public.

All this being said, I support the idea of this proposal, but I don't think it's good enough as written currently. I abstain from voting.

IN CHARACTER


Clearly it hasn't dawned on the Ambassador yet that this turns the "open market" of art into a managed market.


Um, this clone has discused this subject before, and reviewed the notes of the prior golems.

IMHO, in an open market, the government may participate, but it does exert enough force such that it prevents competition, etc. To be an NSUN nation, the gnomes require a nation to tinker in the market.


Government may not force artistic taste this way, but it can put one hell of a skew on the selection.


Sure it can. Did this legislation somehow change that?



I'm against this on the grounds of sheer limpness. It does nothing useful, and potentially prevents something useful from being done later.


What useful thing does it block?


If it forced nations to fund culturally vital people (and groups), defined the term more closely to prevent abuse, and was proof-read to get rid of the more egregious crimes against English, then it would be a different story.

Are you promoting this amendment, or opposing it?

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes NO on this resolution on the following grounds:
1.) While we deem artists to be an important part of a society and culture, extending recognition to them as "vital citizens" runs amok many concepts we have, notably, that everybody has their own vital responsibility as a member of society, whether it be inventing machines to making songs to cleaning toilet bowls. We don't see why it has to be reiterated for artists only.
2.) Isn't it that it makes more sense if it is the contributions themselves to be deemed more vital and be preserved?
3.) While the clause states that he resolution cannot be construed to "establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling," I don't see why establishing funds for the use of artists (as "urged") is not technically establishing an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling. I mean, why won't we give inventors money to promote their invention? Why don't we establish funds for toilet-bowl cleaners to attend a toilet fair and bowl-cleaning conferences? I see a contradiction here.
4.) We think that this proposal should and must be rewritten. And as we cannot edit passed resolutions, we will not abstain, we will vote no, so this would go back to the drawing board.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli (http://www.ns.goobergunch.net/nationstates/index.php/Carina_Talchimio-Spicolli)
His Majesty's Government's Permanent Representative to the United Nations

As an approving delegate of the original proposal, I was satisfied to see and hear about a resolution endorsing and encouraging funding and support for artists and philosophers.

Although this resolution is not worded carefully enough (as I shall explain further), I will vote in support of this resolution - and perhaps I will later word a stronger proposal.

The definition, as we have seen, of culture and arts is rather vague. While the notion to support it is intentionally vague, I do not think that the definition of 'culture' and 'arts' should be such.

Anything and everything; anyone and everyone may be defined as 'vital contributors' to 'culture' and 'arts' if enough loopholes are used. Capitalism can be a culture; murder can be a culture; mutilating a corpse can be considered an art. The author of this proposition, as well as many of the approving delegates, apparently have something else in mind when 'culture' is read; however - such a message; such a hidden intent - must be explicated.

It is for the reason above that I think a stronger resolution - defining culture and arts - should be proposed:

Limits, such as the historicity and traditionality of any given culture or movement should be stated. Furthermore, there should be certain limits imposed from within (i.e. from the resolution pertaining to arts and culture) which enforce previously mentioned UN resolutions pertaining to civil rights and genocide. In addition, certain requirements should be set to the actual impact or evaluation of the success of any given culture evaluated by a certain guild or council for such matters. This meaning that governments should be urged to establish a ministry of culture and arts to deal exclusively with such matters (As opposed to such matters being controlled by military or judicial branches)

These are merely suggestions, but they do highlight certain antidotes to certain loopholes which may be exploited by non-culture friendly states.

Yehuda Har-Nevo
Prime Minister of Nachtbergen
UN Delegate of The Soviet Republic

I'm voting against this resolution because I strongly support governmental support of the arts. This resolution would be counterproductive.

By designating some "culturally vital citizens" in provision 2, and delimiting the media which can qualify as art in the eyes of the state in provision 4, the UN nations would not only be setting themselves up as state censors, but also stunting the experimental arts and new media of art that we cannot foresee.

The language is a dealbreaker.

The Nakhti Empire agreed on voting 'no' for many reasons.

Surely putting much needed government funds into someones hobby is a waste of taxpayers money. The money that could be spent on improving education services, healthcare and crime prevention to say the least. Taxpayers would not be too happy to hear thier money is going into a peace of artwork, no matter how good it is. Take for example the Olympic logo in London; £400,000 spent on a piece of artwork (Not necisarrily good artwork), a mass outrage due to it.

And if they truly deserved funds they would put forward a presentation to a fund provider (For example; The Lottery Fund).

Another point I would like to make is how it would divide nations furthermore by singling out those who have talent. Nations do this enough as it is without pushing the limit by providing them with money. That's a real slap in the face to the Academic society of nations. Are they provided with money for thier intelligence? No. They must struggle to pay for university education, and they aren't praised by the nation at all.

So my fellow UN nations. Vote 'NO' on the 'Benefits for Artists Resolution'.

Nakhti Empire Delegate

The Majority Council will not willingly spend tax-payer's money on such a small, non-essential sub-section of the populace. Especially when there are far more important issues facing far many more people in most countries. Let us dedicate our time and resources to something that will benefit more people in a more important, concrete manner. Lives are at stake, let us not bicker about art.

To the argument that this proposal doesn't "do" anything. Expressing the sense of the Assembly is "doing" something.Great. I'll pocket that argument and save it for the next time one of the idiots on your side of the aisle starts bitching about a Human Rights proposal being too mild.

We'll oppose this resolution in the meantime.

Clearly it hasn't dawned on the Ambassador yet that this turns the "open market" of art into a managed market. Government may not force artistic taste this way, but it can put one hell of a skew on the selection.

I'm against this on the grounds of sheer limpness. It does nothing useful, and potentially prevents something useful from being done later. If it forced nations to fund culturally vital people (and groups), defined the term more closely to prevent abuse, and was proof-read to get rid of the more egregious crimes against English, then it would be a different story.

Perhaps the representative would be interested in conducting a telegram campaign against it then?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I thought proposals had to actually do something. This one doesn't do anything beyond urging us to do nice things for artists (as though they deserve some sort of extra-special treatment).OOC: I guess this is using the language and prose of the RL UN where they do like to use URGES and REQUESTS rather than the NS UN which likes to club nations over the head with MANDATES and such.

IC: Anyhow, Hirota will be opposing this measure. We don't actively promote the arts, and to do so would impact our economic prosperity.

OOC: I guess this is using the language and prose of the RL UN where they do like to use URGES and REQUESTS rather than the NS UN which likes to club nations over the head with MANDATES and such.


OOC: Oh, don't get me wrong. I get the distinction. It's just that I was under the impression that a proposal had to precipitate some form of action and not just say "this is a good idea, so pretty please do something."

How is one person determined to be more "culturally vital" than another? Though it looks like the resolution will pass, the people of Melle Hondo stand strongly against this as a measure that is far too exclusive to benefit anything but the UN's P.R. campaign.

Wreckless Eric
Melle Hondo Ambassador To The Whole Wide World

Speaking of resolutions;

How do we feel about the current "For the Benefit of Artists" resolution?

IMO it's none of the Security Council's business.

I know there's more to the UN than the Security Council,
but I can't think of which organ this would be the business of.

I'm inclined to vote against it,
not because I'm against the arts,
but because if the UN is going to do anything to help art,
it should at the same time promote peace somehow,
and/or preservation of endangered cultures and/or peoples;
and if this resolution does that,
it sure isn't clear on reading it.

Why is the representative of Chorizo or wherever addressing us in verse?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

It is the opinion of the Majority Council that this resolution is nonsensical, though perhaps well intentioned. No one, other than perhaps a few insane dictators and small children, should vote in favor of it. The resolution is "pro-culturally vital activities". And what if a nation should say that murder is culturally vital? Or that (more realistically and likely in some places) that men are culturally vital while women are not? No sane nation can possibly support something so vague as "culturally vital". You could be inflicting untold damage on other nation's peoples who are not deemed culturally valuable, or, some strange, horrible group that is deemed culturally valuable. No, Delegates of the UN, hear us: this must not pass. It is too vague. Vote no.

The Republic of Trionoid values the ideas behind this proposal, but cannot support it as written. It would be impossible for a nation to not favor certain "culturally vital citizens" over others. Your proposal leaves it up to the government to decide how to allocate funds for the arts, but what government can be completely impartial in such regards?

Also, where is the money going to come from to allow these citizens to "dedicate as much time as necessary to his or her art"? This proposal could suddenly lead to more artistically-inclined citizens, who then abandon their own jobs -- which are vital to the nation's economy -- in pursuit of what was formerly simply a hobby. It does not provide only for citizens currently making their living through some form of the arts.

Therefore, I cannot fully support this proposal, and abstain from voting until it can be rewritten.

It isn't the UN's responsibility to be policing culture. If an individual country wants to support its artists, then let that country make the decision for itself. Soon they'll be resolutions telling us to fund giant international museums or something.:rolleyes:

Why is the representative of Chorizo or wherever addressing us in verse?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
It's Chiarizio. Ambassador Vel must be hungry thinking of the mythical Spanish sausage.

Kyle di Fontana
Just an Eighteen-Year-Old Boy at the Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the UN

Why is the representative of Chorizo or wherever addressing us in verse?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UNMore importantly, what is this "Security Council" they're talking about?

Therefore, I cannot fully support this proposal, and abstain from voting until it can be rewritten.

Psst, if you vote NO you increase the likelyhood that a rewrite will be possible.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It's Chiarizio. Ambassador Vel must be hungry thinking of the mythical Spanish sausage.

Now that you mention it, I could go for some jerked dewback meat. I wonder if they serve that in the bar.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

The response of the delegate from the Redundant Socialist Republic of Socialist Redundancy follows:

Here is the response from the delegate of the Redundant Socialist Republic of Socialist Redundancy:

This proposal is worthless. This proposal is pointless. All this proposal does is force us to spend money on the Arts. Socialist Redundancy does not see the value of the arts. Furthermore, we do not see the value of the arts. Neither do we see the value of creating an intellectual elite. "The blade of grass that grows fastest is the first to be cut by the lawnmower."

The proposal is not effective in what it tries to do, whatever that is (creating intellectual elite and government-sponsored art). Thus, I will vote no on this proposal, and suggest you do the same.

The government of Sandtorvian Beliefs can support the part about making a fund for artists, but merely for education. In our Beliefs any form of culture that can't finance it self isn't worthy support. All of todays masterpieces are of artists that never received any funding, and in many cases it's the fact that the artist kept on doing their own ways while not receiving any funding that is the most fascinating about the masterpieces.

< Snip >


http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w107/Cookesland/blank.jpg

well it seems that most of the Assembly is going for an "AGAINST" position on this proposal...and yet its winning by 200 votes

Ailyn im sure the bar has it, they have just about every drink or dish know to the multiverse.

The government of Sandtorvian Beliefs can support the part about making a fund for artists, but merely for education. In our Beliefs any form of culture that can't finance it self isn't worthy support. All of todays masterpieces are of artists that never received any funding, and in many cases it's the fact that the artist kept on doing their own ways while not receiving any funding that is the most fascinating about the masterpieces.

So once they're done studying and know how to do it, they have to be getting a paycheck to do so?

I'm voting against this resolution because I strongly support governmental support of the arts. This resolution would be counterproductive.

By designating some "culturally vital citizens" in provision 2, and delimiting the media which can qualify as art in the eyes of the state in provision 4, the UN nations would not only be setting themselves up as state censors, but also stunting the experimental arts and new media of art that we cannot foresee.

The language is a dealbreaker.

Censoship is when you limit art. This is an attempt to Democratically promote it. What in this legislation do you see that is related to censorhip? The defining of terms? Is that not a necessary act for ALL UN legislation?

Bellllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieve me, we already have legislation on the books that limits art 1000% more then this does.

The Government of the Planned Rational Technate of Francmaçonia has maintained, maintains and intends to continue maintaining that the idea of state-funding of arts is unacceptable as it inevitably means higher taxes imposed on the population. Tax is a type of slave labour, and imposing taxes interferes with basic human rights. Our enlightened Government therefore rejects this proposal.

Censoship is when you limit art. This is an attempt to Democratically promote it. What in this legislation do you see that is related to censorhip? The defining of terms? Is that not a necessary act for ALL UN legislation?

Bellllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieve me, we already have legislation on the books that limits art 1000% more then this does.

What you're failing to grasp is that by having governments determine what is art and what is not (in order to decide who gets the funding), those governments are then, conversely, saying that certain things are not art and not worthy of funding. No, it's not direct censorship in the "no, you can't paint that!" way, but it is de facto censorship, or censorship by default, in the "the government has decided that what you've produced is not art" kind of way. The representative from Esophagi has correctly noted the problems with such an approach.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

No, it's not direct censorship in the "no, you can't paint that!" way, but it is de facto censorship, or censorship by default, in the "the government has decided that what you've produced is not art" kind of way.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I must rise in agreement with my esteemed colleague from New Vandalia. This resolution is asking us to not only determine what the government endorses as art not what it's people decides. It will also force artists seeking funds to alter their visions to "fit in" with what the government is currently funding.

Javar Perez Dequar
UN Ambassador at Large
The United States of Philimbesi

The New Cultural Revolution is fervently in support of a resolution that promotes artistry and cultural endeavours. However, this particular resolution falls some way short of the quality and effect that we desire.

A reluctant nay, I regret.

Benedictions,

Great. I'll pocket that argument and save it for the next time one of the idiots on your side of the aisle starts bitching about a Human Rights proposal being too mild.Context is everything. Though we must say, our pocketful of Kennyite quotes provides much amusement when accompanied by a couple of beers. c(_) Cheers!

Clearly it hasn't dawned on the Ambassador yet that this turns the "open market" of art into a managed market. Government may not force artistic taste this way, but it can put one hell of a skew on the selection.What you're failing to grasp is that by having governments determine what is art and what is not (in order to decide who gets the funding), those governments are then, conversely, saying that certain things are not art and not worthy of funding.We're nonplussed by the sheer range of governments seemingly unable to develop fair guidelines for supporting the arts and humanities in their nations.

I'm against this on the grounds of sheer limpness. It does nothing useful, and potentially prevents something useful from being done later.We are impressed, however, with some of those same government's belief that a stronger resolution would ever see the light of day.

We fully support the intent of this legislation. Given problem areas in this version, and the author's conveyed willingness to redraft, we will at this time vote no.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

Though it looks like the resolution will pass...

Let's not get into resolution projections :rolleyes:.

Votes For: 933

Votes Against: 911

Still very close. For the record, Jey's against.

Great. I'll pocket that argument and save it for the next time one of the idiots on your side of the aisle starts bitching about a Human Rights proposal being too mild.

We'll oppose this resolution in the meantime.

I was wondering when you would crawl out from underneath your rock to contribute your usual screed to the conversation.

To be blunt, this resolution is extremely poor and despite it's manifest good intentions, it fails the sniff test. I won't support this version of it in the hopes that someone will take the author aside and help them write a much better resolution.

We regretfully oppose this measure (even if it puts us in the same camp as Kenny).

<returns to watching live Phobosian art>

~S

The Community of Gadren Delta will oppose this resolution. It is flawed because it does not do anything, because its premises are incorrect, and its means would have an adverse impact on the arts.

Believing that of the factors which define a nation, its cultural achievements are the most lasting and most purely beneficial of all contributions to the world and to itself,
The absolutism in this statement does not bode well for the resolution. For example, ancient Babylonian civilization had a more lasting impact in mathematics than in culture.

Resolving that each member nation be encouraged to establish a fund for the explicit purpose of supporting individuals deemed by the government "culturally vital citizens":
First of all, this does little more than encourage nations to respond to the common "support artists" issue in a certain way.

Perhaps this could be set up as a way to create a series of civil service jobs of artists in the employ of the government. This has precedence, but the way this resolution would work would create a class of artists that are answerable to the government and given greater means than other artists. I don't see how this is a job for governments (if the government needs to hire an artist for a sculpture, that's one thing, but this creates a permanent class of government artists).

Article 3 is the worst. Basically, it lists all the inevitable problems with this kind of system (favoring art for political reasons, influencing the work of artists in this elite class by making them fear creating art against the cultural wishes of the government, etc.), and does nothing to address them except say that they won't happen. It's like establishing a welfare system and just saying "it shall not be used to abuse the system." A blanket ban on the disadvantages of a proposal does not make those disadvantages go away; on the contrary, in this case, those disadvantages are inevitable, and the resolution offers no way to counter them.

In short, this resolution is a mess. Too weak to be of any use, too heavy-handed to truly encourage culture. And here is the main issue:

In the past, most culture has not come from governmental agencies. Art is resistance. Art is a statement about humanity and society. Good art rarely comes from an orthodox government system, but tends to spring up on its own in protest to the way things are. Works of art should be preserved by government (the United State's Film Registry is an example), but preserving artists by this system will only create an elite class, creating art not to bring about passion and a rethinking of the world, but to preserve the government's status quo. And so it is for this reason that the Community of Gadren Delta will vote nay on this proposal.

It stinks.

The Genoshan Isles already has a cultural program, that benefits only certain artists at a time.
Called the Laureates Royal, the top artists from the areas of Poetry, Sculpture, Architecture, and Orchestration are appointed by the Sovereign and serve as the Laureate Royal over his/her specialty (i.e. the top artist in Orchestration is appointed the Conductor Laureate). The Laureates Royal are members of the Royal Court, and paid by the Crown. They are charged to protect the cultural past of the Genoshans, oversee the direction of art and culture currently, and preserve knowledge for the future.

With that said, no silly, mis-worded, unguided, off-handed, fluffy piece of legislation will "urge" us to do what we already do so efficiently. Nemo me impune lacessit

The Genoshan Isles will vote AGAINST.

I wish someone would bring up my pet-peeve now, since it hasn't happened yet.



Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the UN
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

I suppose I should chime in here and state that New Leicestershire opposes this and I have voted against.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w107/Cookesland/blank.jpg

So once they're done studying and know how to do it, they have to be getting a paycheck to do so?

Sure, we are more than willing to pay for quality artists, but we refuse to give out tax-money to something the people won't appreciate. I mean, what's the use of funding an Opera, if none bothers to see it?

You could do even more than that, Watts, and actively oppose it, rather than simply tossing your single vote out there.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Let's not get into resolution projections :rolleyes:.

Votes For: 933

Votes Against: 911

Still very close. For the record, Jey's against.

The South Pacific poll is currently 0 For - 9 against, thus encouraging the delegate to vote against the proposal, if this helps in the projections.

(i started the thread on the TSP forum when it hit quorom...)

You could do even more than that, Watts, and actively oppose it, rather than simply tossing your single vote out there.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
And you could mind your own business.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

And you could mind your own business.


Well, aren't you cranky?

EDIT: And I feel bad for wasting my 100th post on you.

Well, aren't you cranky?
Do you set policy for this delegation? Is it your decision whether we should actively oppose something or "simply toss our single vote out there"? No?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Do you set policy for this delegation? Is it your decision whether we should actively oppose something or "simply toss our single vote out there"? No?

Just a suggestion, cranky boy.

Ausserland has voted NO. We support promotion of the arts, but we find this resolution badly thought out and poorly drafted. We believe that direct subsidy of individual artists cannot help but do exactly what the resolution says it won't do: "establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling".

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Just a suggestion, cranky boy.

Then perhaps you could make your suggestions in a respectful manner, rather than the snide and arrogant tone in which this one was made.

If the representative of New Vandalia should ever decide to tell us how we should conduct ourselves in this Assembly, we'll be more than happy to provide him with a detailed itinerary explaining exactly where he can go.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

You could do even more than that, Watts, and actively oppose it, rather than simply tossing your single vote out there.

Emphasis added for your reference, Aschenbach. As I said, a suggestion.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

For the Benefit of Artists
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Artistic | Proposed by: Rotten Guava (http://nationstates.net/rotten_guava)

Description:

1) Urging that nations evaluate the cultural accomplishments and/or the potential for advancement the advancement of the arts in its citizens and designating the most promising " citizens";

3) Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-control or in any other way influence the work of designated "culturally vital citizens"
-establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling
-spy on other countries
-promote the work of any individual over another's

If the author wants to start their own thread, this one should obviously be locked/deleted. And I claim dibs on doing a bad rehash of '[i]Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite'!

So we're supposed to pick specific people to give funding to, but somehow because the resolution proclaims that this will not "control the work" of those receiving funding. Even though the government would decide who gets funding and who doesn't based upon government approval? Wouldn't this force them to only produce what the state deems to be "culturally vital"?
Wouldn't this necessarily "promote the work of an individual over another's" since we wouldn't deem EVERY citizen to be "culturally vital"?

This looks like a resolution with serious flaws with an amendment simply stating "this resolution does not have flaws". Vote against this garbage.

While The Confederacy of the World Populace recognizes the value of the arts, the majority opinion is that the government should not fund certain individuals simply because they follow a specific occupation. The potential for corruption and waste of that fund is enormous. Therefore, my country has elected to vote against this resolution.

S.G.G.
The World Populace Ambassador to the United Nations

[Within the NSUN Nunciate of the Eternal Kawaii]

"This requires your attention, your grace."

The UN Nuncia of the Eternal Kawaii looked distractedly at the nekomusume who was serving as her deputy du jour. "Another UN resolution?" she said, half-tired and half-pleadingly. It was pretty clear she was not eager to hear what her deputy had to say.

"I'm sorry, your grace, but it does come with the job," the former shrine maiden said in a firm tone. Though officially the Nuncia's junior, she and most of the Nunciate staff were a few years older than the young teenage head of the Eternal Kawaii's embassy, and tended to adopt an 'older sister' attitude with her. She readjusted her cat-eared ceremonial headgear, and added, "I know your grace is busy with the resettlement project, but as vital as that is, we still need to voice our nation's opinion on matters of the day."

The Nuncia pouted slightly. "And just what is our nation's opinion?"

"The Prophet appointed you to give it, your grace," the nekomusme said calmly.

The Nuncia sighed, and said, "Okay...I guess I'll have to wing this one."

[Within the GA hall]

The Nuncia approached the podium a bit nervously. She hated giving speeches unprepared, but there was no help for that here. Bowing politely to the assembled delegates, she spoke.

"In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

"We rise to cast our vote in favor of this resolution." Pausing a second, she said, "We...think art is a good idea. Our nation really likes art, and thinks other nations ought to like it to. I mean, look around you," she added, waving a hand around the hall. "Some of the decoration here is pretty tacky. We could all do better, really."

Gathering herself, she continued. "Well. As I was saying, our nation fully supports arts and culture as expressions of harmony with the Cute One. Harmony is of the utmost importance, in both an individual and in a nation. A nation out of harmony is a nation headed for violent confrontation. For the sake of harmony, then, and for the sake of the peace it will bring, we encourage others here to vote for this resolution."

The deputy Nuncia listened to her boss's speech impassively. When the Nuncia stepped down from the dais, the deputy turned to one of the other nekomusume in the Kawaiian delegation, and said, "If anyone asks, I'm headed for the Strangers' Bar."

The other nekomusume nodded, and said, "I'll join you."

While cultural artists and philosophers and the like are certainly important in the progression of a culture's thought and strength, they do not require special funding and government attention to further create their works. Almost all artists that have contributed to culture are not models of financial power and economy, yet they continue to create their works that have a positive impact on society. Funding these artists could only corrupt their works, as one does not require financial strength and attention to create, if any, his or her brilliant works.


Bosnaeum votes AGAINST.




-Bosnaeum's U.N. Representative

And I dont see how it will prevent future, more meddlesome legislation either. Reguardless of its mildness. I would prefer to shut it down the first go around rather than have to write a repeal later.


I totally agree, and am tired of repeal resolutions!!!'

Also...

"Noting the difficulty of making intellectual contributions in modern society,"
everything has difficulty! In this resolution, this statement is a blank sentence! It doesn't say anything. (ex: things could get worse)

And...

3) Emphasising that this resolution shall not be used to:
-control or in any other way influence the work of designated "culturally vital citizens"
-establish an intellectual elite separate or discrete from citizens of any other calling
-spy on other countries
-promote the work of any individual over another's

How does funding certian people not put them above another?
How does funding someone not affect their work?

Answer these to me, and I may change my mind. I AM AGAINST!

- Pres Scottamus, Trandaga

feel free to contact me

Fund artists? Some of the greatest artists painted their greatest works, because they were poor! Starvation is a very good motivator to make a guy create a great work of art.

The blues were performed by poor people.

I was wondering when you would crawl out from underneath your rock to contribute your usual screed to the conversation.

To be blunt, this resolution is extremely poor and despite it's manifest good intentions, it fails the sniff test. I won't support this version of it in the hopes that someone will take the author aside and help them write a much better resolution.

We regretfully oppose this measure (even if it puts us in the same camp as Kenny).

<returns to watching live Phobosian art>

~S

You know, you could have made your remarks without the snide comment towards the Kennyite delegation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You know, you could have made your remarks without the snide comment towards the Kennyite delegation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

But that wouldn't be his...er...style...now, would it?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Context is everything. Though we must say, our pocketful of Kennyite quotes provides much amusement when accompanied by a couple of beers. c(_) Cheers!
And then after quoting me and others...
We're nonplussed by the sheer range of governments seemingly unable to develop fair guidelines for supporting the arts and humanities in their nations.

We are impressed, however, with some of those same government's belief that a stronger resolution would ever see the light of day.
Context is everything, Ambassador! I said I want to see a stronger, cleaner proposal. My previous quote was pointing out the flawed assumption in an opinion offered by another ambassador!

All this proposal does is force us to spend money on the Arts.
No it doesn't. It suggests that you might want to think about it, pretty please, no really. That's one of my main gripes about it.

Socialist Redundancy does not see the value of the arts.
I couldn't have dreamed up a better argument in favour of a stronger resolution. Thank you.

Perhaps the representative would be interested in conducting a telegram campaign against it then?
No, the representative would not. (OOC: not least because he's going to be offline for large chunks of the weekend.) I take heart from the opinions expressed here and the current state of the vote that an anti campaign isn't needed.

It doesn't take much studying of past votes to realize that the debate here on the floor isn't always reflected in the vote tally.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

*takes the podium*

Sure, we are more than willing to pay for quality artists, but we refuse to give out tax-money to something the people won't appreciate. I mean, what's the use of funding an Opera, if none bothers to see it?

Im sure one of the six million people in Sandtorvian Beliefs will want to see an opera, have some faith in your people.

Oh, and Cookesland officially submits its vote as "AGAINST", this proposal has the right idea but its just not written well and just urges...

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

But that wouldn't be his...er...style...now, would it?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

True, but it would make this a more pleasant place to work.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

True, but it would make this a more pleasant place to work.

Don't get me started on how we could make this a more pleasant place to work, Flibble. It might get me tossed out on my ass.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Don't get me started on how we could make this a more pleasant place to work, Flibble. It might get me tossed out on my ass.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Careful what you say there, people have been know to get defenestrated around here.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Careful what you say there, people have been know to get defenestrated around here.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Mostly those who can't define "defenestration," I'm guessing. ;)

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

But that wouldn't be his...er...style...now, would it?

Yeah, some people's ...er ...style... stands out like a sore thumb, doesn't it?

Yeah, some people's ...er ...style... stands out like a sore thumb, doesn't it?

And some have no style at all, eh?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

This is a completely useless proposition because it never defines "culturally vital citizens." That means that "culturally vital citizens" could be people that have absolutely nothing to do with arts at all. Furthermore, I don't want assasins deemed "culturally vital citizens" by their corrupt government coming into my nation and spreading crime and other things.
-Finally Summer

You know, you could have made your remarks without the snide comment towards the Kennyite delegation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I could have, and I likely will in the future be more civil. But today, I just don't care. I'm not ever going to be liked by Kenny, so why pretend to be civil? There is precious little to gain, all Kenny would think is that I was being an obsequious pogue, or a pompous git.

We are better served by knowing where each other stands and if in the future we agree on something again, that is a happy circumstance that I would not be averse to.

As to snide, Mr. Flibble? I think all of us are sufficiently guilty of that sin and really shouldn't pretend otherwise.

~S

Don't get me started on how we could make this a more pleasant place to work, Flibble. It might get me tossed out on my ass.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Careful what you say there, people have been know to get defenestrated around here.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Mostly those who can't define "defenestration," I'm guessing. ;)

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Image:Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
*Throws Ailyn Vel, her staff, her papers, assorted personal belongings and the chair she is sitting in...out the window.*

*leans out and watches the descent of Vel and staff*

Dasvedanya, Ambassador Vel!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

so why pretend to be civil?Because Fris and I are sick to death of OOC sniping being dressed up in the thinest veneer of IC trappings?

Because your particular snipe added absolutely nothing to the discussion and was utterly irrelevent to the rest of your comments?

Because Fris has smacked people for it already?

Because I wrote a goddamned sticky about this very thing?


You have your choice on why you should "pretend to be civil". I really don't care which one you go with, but you (and the rest of the regulars here) had better find one that works.

Now then. Back on topic.


-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

I could have, and I likely will in the future be more civil. But today, I just don't care. I'm not ever going to be liked by Kenny, so why pretend to be civil? There is precious little to gain, all Kenny would think is that I was being an obsequious pogue, or a pompous git.You didn't need to bring Kenny into it at all, and yet you did.

As to snide, Mr. Flibble? I think all of us are sufficiently guilty of that sin and really shouldn't pretend otherwise.

~S

I'll admit that I have made the occasional snarky comment in the past (and I'll probably make more in the future), on the other hand you tend to make them every time you open your mouth.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I agree with Trionoid.

I think this resolution needs to be reworked without citizens or 'culturally vital' being included.

I also feel that the language should be stronger than an urging, as well.

We absolutely oppose this bill without question. All of our citizens are noobs, and deserve no money for their "art."

The U.N. practice of attempting to divert funds from the Emperor's new palace to "designated citizens", or any citizens for that matter, is not appreciated and is quite unsettling.

*aehm*

Greetings, esteemed colleagues.

The position of the Democratic States of Karilonia is simple.
While we do value Arts and Culture, we think the pillars of modern society are based on knowledge, lore, science and technology.

As such, we think improper to elevate artists, that most of the time support the others pillars but are not a pillar in itself, over the rest, financially or otherwise.

Therefore, we vote against.

Thanks for your time

Luronen Moje
UN Representative of Karilonia

Although The United Socialist States of Sickern Does support the arts and encourages cultural activity, we are against the artist having special rights, and we have voted against this proposal
Ps how on earth does proposal achieve anythig when some other nations already have Artist Support programs?!

Although The United Socialist States of Sickern Does support the arts and encourages cultural activity, we are against the artist having special rights, and we have voted against this proposal
Ps how on earth does proposal achieve anythig when some other nations already have Artist Support programs?!

Quite our point previously. As our ambassador has said before this proposal will do nothing to help artists with all the urging. And the nations that want to support artists are already doing so.

While we support the arts we already have two ministries dedicated to arts and culture. The Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Culture and The Ministry of Education.

We would also like to point out that by not clearly defining "culturally vital citizens". This resolution opens up a loophole where a nation could claim that its military was culturally vital and throw them even more money.

On top of that by limiting the forms of art available this proposal does not take into consideration the potential for new art forms being created.

We are also urging every comrade in our Region to vote against this proposal.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to see if my nephew needs funding for his "Comrade Cat" cartoon for children. We hope to have that blaring out of televisions across Zyrwick by the end of the month.

Dr. Zoltan Zerminsky
Central Committee of the People's Communist Party of Zrywick
Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Culture.
Democratic Republic of Zyrwick.

This resolution opens up a loophole where a nation could claim that its military was culturally vital and throw them even more money.


You do realise that there's already nothing to prevent them from doing that? It's not as if defeating this proposal will somehow stop them.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Madame Ambassador,

Dr. Zerminsky is a propa--er--artist, not a diplomat, and has a limited knowledge on the affairs of the UN. Take it for what it is, a piece of rhetoric.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-254017249.jpg

After giving this resolution more consideration than it deserves, the nation of Retired Werepenguins is voting against the current resolution. Should this resolution fail we will reserve our right to reconsider our position if and when a better written version of this resolution is presented before the assembly.

- Tzor Red Brown.

Her Majesty, upon reading this proposal, has instructed me to cast our vote against, for several reasons.

First, while we do hold art, poetry, and other such 'cultural achievements' in high regard, it is our faith that is the most lasting and beneficial contribution to our nation. To say otherwise is to contradict the very foundation of our nation, and that is unacceptable.

Further, no government funds in our nation are to be used for funding these 'culturally vital citizens'. Like all professions in Karianis, artists must make it on their own, the only exception of which is when they have a government contract to work on our cathedrals and temples.

And finally, like all citizens of our nation, travel out of our borders is heavily restricted. As the nation's UN representative, I'm one of the very small group allowed passage outside the country. Others must file a request with the central government, before they'll be allowed any kind of freedom to leave.

And as a further note, this proposal is written in far too vague of terms, and has no real legislation, and on principle, shouldn't be allowed to pass.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

Salutations, brethren.

As it has been said so many times before, this resolution offers no binding legislation. Further, it impinges a bit too much on our sovereignity a bit too much. While New Avarin does appreciate Arts & Culture, Artists and culture mongerers do not need to be singled out and favorited before any other of our citizens who perform equally important, yet unpraised jobs.

Sen Sulla looks out at the assembly. His eyes are blood-shot and he looks more disheveled that usual. He reaches for the pitcher of ice water on the desk. He pours a glass of it and starts to take a drink. However before the glass reaches his lips her makes an awful grimmace and shudders. He pours the glass back into the pitcher, and insted opens the top drawer of his desk. From the drawer he removes a silver flask, from which the good senator takes a generous swallow. Then he begins to speak.

"My fellow denizens of this festering snakepit, we lovingly refer to as the debate hall. At the first glance of the bill, Her Imperial Hotness, Empress Jhessan uttered the words "Sweet Flaming A**crackers!" afterwards she gave me some rather firm instructions to vote no. Se did invest me with the authority, however, to offer my vote for sale. unfortunately after listening to this debate, I cannot even bring myself to stoop that low. We of the Palentine shall stay opposed to this bill. Artist should be able to support themselves. If they cannot, then its time to actually work for a living."

There are a few reasons why this resolution should not be passed:

1. It is not the government's job to help artists. The government's job is to protect the rights of the people. Giving the government such a responsibility (and the funds to do it) is like letting the police decide which art gets in museums. It simply is not a government function.

2. The government cannot just decide who is "culturally vital" or not. The resolution claims that it will not "promote the work of any individual over another's," but the nature of the resolution itself denotes promotion of individual artists. Unless the resolution claims to support any and all artists, it is supporting the work of some artists over others'.

3. The culture of a country cannot be regulated or decided by its government. Culture is purely a product of a country's people and should not be and does not need to be supported by the government. The reason artists are important is because people recognize them as important and support them.

In summary, this resolution is a waste of the UN's time and resources. It is neither necessary nor correct in its supporting statements.

Imperator of the Democratic Republic of Licentias Libertas
Draco Niveus
"Libertas Infinitus Omnibus"

The Republic Of Fantaghiro is definitely for this proposal, despite the strong opposition from other nations...because we value the work of artists all over the world and believe that they are gifted people who face alot of obstacles before achieving their dreams or expanding them.

And that is why we welcome such a resolution that would definitely help in this field. :fluffle:

I actually fail to see how 'urging' and introducing some badly-defined termini in a resolution affecting the cultural policy, which is a rather touchy subject what governmental control and subsidies are concerned, would help the cause of hard-working and inspired artists.
If a certain poet would compose hymns to praise the glorious leadership of my dynasty, I would definitely consider him 'culturally vital' and finance his work, hell, I'd be 'urging' others to do the same. I've witnessed such cultural policies in real life, I know how they work.
This is a useless piece of legislation.
Against it.
UN Delegate of NS Taijitu

Art is a universal language; it reflects, defines and defies the culture and traditions of the day.

Further more, a government would surely reject an artist that expresses support or preference for an alternate government or counter culture.

Art has thrived for the full extent of human history with or without regulation by the governments of society and will continue to thrive non-withstanding this resolution.

The Kingdom of Grahnholm rejects this motion on the basis of the bare affront to individuality both on the artist and the national sovereignty.

As a nation we will not stand in a position to hinder the artistic abilities of any artisan no matter the pallet or focus.

The proposal is perfectly fine, aside from the fact that a nation must specify which individuals are the 'vital' ones. Instead, it would be a good idea to create a fund that would support individuals that are voted upon by a commity set up by the government. They would then in turn allow for all the things described in the current proposal for these individuals. This would be similar to the nobel prize system except exclusively for the arts. The proposal as it stands now is faulted because by simply stating that it would not create a seperate class of preferred ones would not solve the matter because it is simply an unspecified statement that is thrown out there. It would be fascist-like to decide which citizens are the better ones and which are not. In the alteration proposed above, artists are not categorized according to vital vs. non-vital but all have the potential to be elected for special treatment or funding after proving themselves worthy.

Ambassador Orseolo raises him self up from his seat, adjusts his robes so they fall in a manner more flattering to his ample form, and takes the floor of the debating chamber.

"The Most Serene Republic of La Nausee is all for encouraging quality art, however, while acknowledging the subjective nature of artistic appreciation, this proposal will fail to accomplish its aims of promoting cultural and intellectual achievements. "

Orseolo pauses while the chamber reverberates with the clapping and cheers of support from the majority of the gathered body, drowning out the feeble jeering of those who would oppose his point of view.

"It will merely promote an increased quantity of artistic output in the vain hope that there will be a corresponding increase in quality! But this hope is unfounded in the case of all but the most restrictive state economies, as most of those with the talent and inclination to produce artistic and culturally significant work will already be doing so in a private function in a Libertarian nation such as La Nausee! This means that the proposed resolution in regard to Free Nation States such as La Nausee is basically just an attempt by socialist states to force us to pay a benefit to untalented, unproductive and lazy pseudo-artists!"

By this time Orseolo has worked himself into a rage. His face is bright red and his voluptuous features quiver with the force of every word. As he waits for the applause and shouts of his supporters in the debating chamber to die down, he wipes some spittle off of his chin before continuing in a more composed fashion.

"Further, government patronage of the arts risks unduly influencing the output of artists by forcing conformity to government ideals of art. While this will undoubtedly benefit those states that need to force their citizens to conform to their twisted ideas of how society should function, La Nausee is of the opinion that it is better for states that lack cultural output of their own and have a legitimate desire to resolve this, to submit the matter for consideration to the Great Max Barry to perhaps adopt as an Issue. This is a matter best resolved domestically and not something that should be forced upon other sovereign states. La Nausee will be voting against this proposal, and we urge other states to do the same."

Ambassador Orseolo turns dramatically and marches back to his seat, leaving the applause of his peers unacknowledged.

Since Dosuun is now a UN member nation I am urging all nations to vote against the current UN resolution. As there is no definition of a "culturally vital citizen" that it would be far too easy for governments to appoint propagandists to such a position and use the funds for just that, propaganda. Expression should be free; part of that means government allowing a wide variety of expression, part of that means government not endorsing views expressed by individuals.

there is no purpose to this resolution as there is no definition of culture, as many have said. true there is the factor of the ancient greeks having "the greatest culture of the western world"etc. however this is because western culture is based of the romans, wheisch was primarily based off the greek and persian cultures. now that you have had your history lesson, my nations stand is against as it is a waste of time.

Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

"Bah!! What is this....the Renaissance!?!? Do we really need to waste an entire UN session on a bill that "urges" us to give money to artists? We do not need to deal with non-binding resolutions. In my opinion, we should be focusing on more important things such as global trade, international security, and trade route piracy. I disagree with this resolution so much that I will philibuster it!! What do you "uzbeks" plan to do now!?!?!?"

-Rep. Borat Sogadiev

I didn't even think this was a bill. I thought it was a resolution. Bah! Just another name for a law and an excuse to grow government.

Ambassador Juk stood up, this time remembering to grab the microphone.

"I have said this before, literally. I did. No one heard me though. Anyways, passing this bill will insure that such great works such as the blues will never come again! Artists thrive on the fact that, the better their art is, the more they get to eat. As such, we are against."

Before sitting down, he turns to Ambassador Orseolo.

"Ambassador, an issue quite like this has already been installed. In fact, my president dealt with it right before this bill hit the debate floor."

This Raises An interesting point, this simply proves that the UN can not funtion. The Conglomerate Council of our Nation has been debating wheather to join the UN for years, and frankly now that the Emperor has heard this, he does not feel the UN would be in his best interests. Our Nation will not allow art to be become a civic matter. If we would like art in our country, it would have to become globalized.

Dr James DaLefer
Imperial Minister Of Foreign Affairs
By the grace of his Imperial Majesty
The Emperor Of the MegaCorps Of sicker

This Raises An interesting point, this simply proves that the UN can not funtion. The Conglomerate Council of our Nation has been debating wheather to join the UN for years, and frankly now that the Emperor has heard this, he does not feel the UN would be in his best interests. Our Nation will not allow art to be become a civic matter. If we would like art in our country, it would have to become globalized.

Dr James DaLefer
Imperial Minister Of Foreign Affairs
By the grace of his Imperial Majesty
The Emperor Of the MegaCorps Of sicker

The UN does not need you if your membership is so thinly reasoned.

As there is no definition of a "culturally vital citizen" that it would be far too easy for governments to appoint propagandists to such a position and use the funds for just that, propaganda.

Governments can do that whether or not this proposal succeeds. You seem to be mistakenly assuming that the failure of this proposal would somehow constrain governments from acting in that way.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The only thing worse than a resolution that actually urges the arbitrary creation of a funded elite class of citizens is the depressingly typical "WAAAH! It violates my nation's national sovr... uh... sahvrin... uh... I don't know how to spell it, but BOY, does this thing violate it!" arguments used against it.

I'd love it if, in a deliberative body such as this one is supposed to be, folks would not just drive-by their no or yes votes, but give at least a half-hearted attempt to explain why.

I'll be in my toilet waiting for the monkeys to fly out of my alimentary canal.

Governments can do that whether or not this proposal succeeds. You seem to be mistakenly assuming that the failure of this proposal would somehow constrain governments from acting in that way.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


This is the principal reason that Zyrwick opposes this resolution. As we said previously, nations that want to do this are already doing so. Although the comment about propaganda is interesting. All good art is Propaganda for the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick and for the creation of the Personality cult of General Secretary Maxim Ulyanov. Everything else is not art but rather counter-revolutionary material that must be prohibited in our glorious Democratic Republic.

We would further like to note that a resolution that changes nothing is basically worthless. In fact I'm surprised it even reached quorum.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

All good art is Propaganda for the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick and for the creation of the Personality cult of General Secretary Maxim Ulyanov. Everything else is not art but rather counter-revolutionary material that must be prohibited in our glorious Democratic Republic.
How can you call that "democratic" and keep a straight face?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonia UN Representative

why are so many ppl against promiting a bit of culture Imagine if all the great artists had not been sponsored we would be much poorer. Although I disagree with fine art ending up in private hands

How can you call that "democratic" and keep a straight face?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonia UN Representative

We need no lesson on democracy from your lordship or your lordship's feudal and therefore primitive society. Our Dictatorship of the Proletariat is very democratic. We have elections and what not. And any Adult may run for office. They probably wont win if they are not a member of the People's Communist Party. But they can run for election none the less.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that freedom of expression was an important part of democracy. Silly me.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

why are so many ppl against promiting a bit of culture Imagine if all the great artists had not been sponsored we would be much poorer. Although I disagree with fine art ending up in private hands

Who said anyone was against art or the financing of it. We are merely against a foreign body mandating that we do so. The UN was not designed to impose philosophies and beliefs upon other individuals, this is in fact the very opposite of what it is intended for. The UN is designed as a place to defend national sovereignty against those that would seek to destroy it. This resolution flies in the face of everything that the UN supposedly stands for. I am for the arts, but against this bill. I have yet to hear anyone give a well thought out justification for why this needs to be an international mandate.

P.S. Most artists were sponsored by private patrons and the upper class not the government.

Erm...

We vote against.

Because art is boring. And there are no citizens that are culturally "vital".

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Art Critic

I say against it.

If a country wants to set up this, let them do so. Why sound the UN decide all of a sudden art should be free in all countries? Maybe some countries think that art is the type of thing that destorys a country. I believe mandating this volates a country's right to have rights, if any of this makes sense. Should mandate something that not everyone can live with. Thank you,

Caleb Marshal
De Tribuntal
EWA/USW United Colalition Ambassidor

The Geosynchronous Leper Colony of Herman Hessia:
Vote against this artist bs. Artists don't want or need our help. They'd rather suffer and sprawl out naked in the streets. Accordingly, we should propose a counter-bill that aims to reduce all artists to sub-citizen status in all countries of former citizenship, and to slave status (with a strong emphasis on sexual slavery) elsewhere.

As an afterthought, I'd like to mention that the above course of action would also serve to expand the currently anemic "kidnapping artists for sexual slavery overseas" sector of our international economy.

The Psychotic Kidnapper of The Death Slavers:
I like the way the leader of "The Geosynchronous Leper Colony of Herman Hessia" Thinks. Let's not fool ourselves here, artist are not people. We all know that, it's just a question of caging the animals for their own protection or continuing to let them run wild. I say leaving them uncared for and uncaged only hurts the quality of their artwork. Think of the suffering that would transfer to canvas when it's assisted with regular whippings? Plus all the money saved in red paint. Think of the profits we will rake in and don't forget dead artists works are worth more, we can make SURE we live to see those extra profits.

Who said anyone was against art or the financing of it. We are merely against a foreign body mandating that we do so.
That would be a valid position to take if the proposal actually did so. It doesn't. All it says is that it would be really nice if you did something to fund people who might or might not have anything much to do with art, if it's all the same to you.

I dont see why this is even at vote.

A proposal that doesn't do anything but tries to tell us how to manage culture? Greaaaat...

But what irks me the most of all is that for all its present participles and commas, the proposal lacks a main clause. :mad:

I dont see why this is even at vote.

Because as P.T. Barnum once said, you can fool a majority of the regional delegates some of the time.

So please, which way is it to the egress? I want to see the egress!

This is the principal reason that Zyrwick opposes this resolution. As we said previously, nations that want to do this are already doing so.

Indeed. My government is not convinced by this proposal, and is abstaining.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This legislation clearly serves to only benefit a select few. Only the "most gifted of the gifted artists" will reap the rewards of this law. Alas, we have all seen what giving a small hierarchy a large influence will do: they will take over. If not immediately, quite soon thereafter. I am, therefore, obligated as Regional Delegate of The Eastern Territory to staunchly oppose anything that would give one side an unfair advantage.

Because as P.T. Barnum once said, you can fool a majority of the regional delegates some of the time.

And actually, you don't even have to fool the majority. You only have to fool 6% of them.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

were for some sort of simple program promoting and/or preserving the arts, maybe The Queendom of Lyonene would vote for this, as it is:

Resolving that each member nation be encouraged to establish a fund for the explicit purpose of supporting individuals deemed by the government "culturally vital citizens"

We feel this is placing life value on select people and in our eyes, this is wrong. Being able to paint better then the next person does not insure you a place in the bomb shelter if we go to war, figuratively speaking.

As we all know, our cultures remain, with or without the artists.

Against, on the grounds that it not only does nothing more than "urge" (basically a useless bill, and a complete waste of time) for funding, but it is not the job of the government to spend money on the arts. The government needs to budget itself to spend money only on that which is absolutely necessary.

Government funded art is a waste of money.

And this bill is a waste of time.

Government funded art is a waste of money.



OOC: You have obviously never heard of the German Enlightenment or other artistic movements that achieved what they did. Do not forget that 'Modern' culture was a result of the Enlightenment and Renaissance. These movements were funded by the government. Many European countries still have a ministry of culture which funds such projects, and they are looked upon as masters of art. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the US

OOC:

Actually if you would check your facts before opening your mouth you would find, Nachtbergen, that the Renaissance and Enlightenment advancements in art and science were primarily funded by individual rich aristocratic patrons. Not the Crowned Heads. While true the Crowned Heads did help some. But not nearly in the proportion you claim.

Further, just because a majority of the western European (and perhaps the world) countries have a ministry for art and culture does not mean that it needs to be urged, recommended or mandated by the UN here.

NationStates does not Equal Real Life.

OOC: Indeed, but their influence was also important. NS does not equate real life, but real life should be sufficient to provide an argument against such a myopic retort.

OOC:

Incorrect.

1. The NSUN unlike the RLUN has resolutions that are must be followed by all UN member nations.

2. The NSUN unlike the RLUN has non-human sentient beings in it.

3. The NSUN unlike the RLUN is not confined to one planet, or time period.

For these three primary reasons, while RL experience might form the idea that a resolution for an issue is necessary. Using them as argument to either support or oppose a NSUN is considered to be moot unless used to describe in terms that most people can understand a situation that may arise from or be prevented by said NSUN Resolution Proposal.

I must rise in agreement with my esteemed colleague from New Vandalia. This resolution is asking us to not only determine what the government endorses as art not what it's people decides. It will also force artists seeking funds to alter their visions to "fit in" with what the government is currently funding.

Javar Perez Dequar
UN Ambassador at Large
The United States of Philimbesi

This doesn't limit artistic production, or the sales of artistic works, at all. Other laws on the books do.

The Geosynchronous Leper Colony of Herman Hessia:
Vote against this artist bs. Artists don't want or need our help. They'd rather suffer and sprawl out naked in the streets. Accordingly, we should propose a counter-bill that aims to reduce all artists to sub-citizen status in all countries of former citizenship, and to slave status (with a strong emphasis on sexual slavery) elsewhere.

There are a great many artists whose artist works are forbidden by previous legislation. This avenue here allows them to still receive democratic support, when they are forbidden such support by more regular venues.

It is the position of HawaiianFreedom that Art should come naturally and be devoted to naturally by the people of this world. A fund to promote artwork is welcome, but should not allow someone to ignore interaction with society because the civilization needs Art.

Art is an inspiration and a benefit to all. It comes from the wellspring within and should be given respect. This fund designates people as "special" citizens. It may not be this resolution's intent to mark people as a certain class of people, however that is what it's doing.

If a nation wants to fund the arts and to benefit its people with excursions to other nations around the world to promote culture it may do that. This resolution is not necessary to force on people what they already believe in their hearts.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation.

That would be a valid position to take if the proposal actually did so. It doesn't. All it says is that it would be really nice if you did something to fund people who might or might not have anything much to do with art, if it's all the same to you.

This quote is taken directly from the proposal; "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts." This triviality in verbage is not extremely important to the primary issue, however it clearly states promote. You are confusing the word encourage with promote. If this resolution passed it would mandate that every country promote the development of the arts. The requirement that every country promote funding of arts was the issue.

This quote is taken directly from the proposal; "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts."
Actually no, that's the text of the category definition. It is merely an indicator of the nature of the proposal, not a part of it in any legal sense.

This triviality in verbage is not extremely important to the primary issue, however it clearly states promote. You are confusing the word encourage with promote. If this resolution passed it would mandate that every country promote the development of the arts.
No it wouldn't. The proposal contains no clauses that mandate anything. We are just "urged" to figure out who's "culturally vital" (I think, it's rather badly written), fund them and allow them to travel abroad. We don't have to do any of those things if we don't want to.

I thought this proposal was a load of *****. It had no point and no one cares. Get sniped:sniper::mp5:

Well, it appears that we've now heard from the troglodyte section of the GA.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bazalonia has a strong tradition in many arts, and it has long been government policy to support and aid those that wish to perform their arts.

We find that picking a few names seemingly according to a government defined arbitary standard is not something that actually promotes art, such as stories, plays, musicals, movies, songs and similiar endeavours, but what is preferred by us is a governmental body devoted to providing advice and information, as well as if appropriate monetary founds to help create a new work of art that could very well bring new artists to the public.

We beleive it is this getting started period that is most important for the cultural and artistic resources of the country. This proposal does nothing and is a waste of this august bodies time and effort.

Yours Sincerly, John MacKay

I simply don't like it

Bazalonia;12786909']

We beleive it is this getting started period that is most important for the cultural and artistic resources of the country. This proposal does nothing and is a waste of this august bodies time and effort.

Yours Sincerly, John MacKay

I see this proposal as a means by which nations, and international bodies, can work around other UN legislation. It allows the nation to encourage artistic works that are not legal for sale on the open market.

I urge everyone to consider this resolution not simply for its superficial merit insofar as to how it benefits and supports artists, but more deeply, how it will benefit and promote more levels of exchange, communication and mutual understanding within the international community.

What we are supporting here, is not just the individual artists, but also what are potentially unofficial, independent, free-thinking cultural ambassadors these artists and their work can serve as, simply by expressing and promoting their various works, perspectives and ideas. Although no single artist can be 100% respresentative of his or her culture, the increased awareness and tolerance that will be almost automatically promoted via this program and the funds we are allotting toward it will contribute substantially to enhancing the unity and mutual respect within the international community. Ironically, it will bring us all a little closer together by causing our peoples to explore and appreciate our distinct differences and heritages.

There is a lot of potential here I urge everyone to consider. Often, diplomacy occurs quite naturally in such unofficial, more relaxed avenues of exchange than it does among the forums of our more polished, conventional political processes. This is by no means discrediting our own duties or the irreplacing importance of them; I merely mean that there are other ways to more subtly achieve much of what we do, diplomatically, and this is surely a program with great promise for that!

So we're starting a clandestine operation to sell illegal art?

I don't approve.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I still don't like it

So we're starting a clandestine operation to sell illegal art?

I don't approve.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I see it as a good way to publicly promote art that can not be monetized, but that is recognized to have value.

I still don't like it

You still have not said why.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I still don't like it

Is this the new picker?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The resolution "For the Benefit of Artists" was defeated 7,297 votes to 3,609.

[in the NSUN Nunciate of the Eternal Kawaii.]

The Nuncia looked over the results of the vote. She didn't appear too happy, despite her religion's commandment to be.

"It went down in flames, your grace" one of the undersecretarial nekomusume commented.

"Well, pooh. I thought my speech on the need for harmony would've helped..." the Nuncia said glumly.

The undersecretary ventured, "I don't think harmony is a big selling point among the heathen here, your grace."

"Oh well. One less resolution to deal with. I hear there's a mah-jongg game starting up in the Strangers' Bar," the Nuncia replied, brightening. "Care to join me?

art is a luxary

art is a luxary

Art is the primary method by which a society communicates with itself, and with other societies. It's how the group mind thinks.

*Throws Ailyn Vel, his staff, his papers, assorted personal belongings and the chair he is sitting in...out the window.*

*leans out and watches the descent of Vel and staff*

Dasvedanya, Ambassador Vel!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

OOC: Haven't clicked the link in my IC posts, have you, IF?

And actually, you don't even have to fool the majority. You only have to fool 6% of them.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Not even 6%. Look! I can change water into wine!

I don't have to get all of you to believe it, or even 6% -- just 12 of you. :p

OOC: Haven't clicked the link in my IC posts, have you, IF?
OOC: Ah! It's female. Post edited.

OOC: Ah! It's female. Post edited.

OOC: It?!? :eek:

Don't you think you ought to reconsider your knee-jerk defenstration policy, if you don't even know who it is you're tossing out that window? ;)

Don't you think you ought to reconsider your knee-jerk defenstration policy
No.

You still have not said why.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I don't have to say anything

I'm a Dictator for the love of god

I don't have to say anything

I'm Dictator for the love of god
No, you don't have to say why. But if you don't, you'll find that the rest of us ignore you. Those of us that aren't already ignoring you for being a dictator, anyway.

What you got against dictators anyway? Some of our best friends are dictators.

What you got against dictators anyway? Some of our best friends are dictators.

Yeah...