Should the government fund the arts?
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arts fund government
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Yes.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Well, that's good enough for me!
Eleatic Stranger
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 439
Yes, but only the ones that I personally enjoy and approve of.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
First of all, define what 'art' is.... are you talking paintings, music (popular and/or classical), theater.
Secondly, define by what you mean by 'fund' the arts... full subsidies? seed money? Paying for the living expenses of artists? Ownership (although making the art exhibition self-funded)?
I have no problem with a government-funded 'art museum' which will house some nationally important pieces, although determining what is 'nationally important' is problematic (think: Voice of Fire). Is that considered 'support for the arts'? I do disagree with paying artists directly (since there is no guarantee that anything they produce will be important in 10 years time).
Secondly, define by what you mean by 'fund' the arts... full subsidies? seed money? Paying for the living expenses of artists? Ownership (although making the art exhibition self-funded)?
I have no problem with a government-funded 'art museum' which will house some nationally important pieces, although determining what is 'nationally important' is problematic (think: Voice of Fire). Is that considered 'support for the arts'? I do disagree with paying artists directly (since there is no guarantee that anything they produce will be important in 10 years time).
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
One fellow who was an artist had a local-TV show, once he said "NEA funding the arts? Buy me some paint!"
I think there's a long tradition of governments funding "the arts", some with rather laughable results. Prior to our latest invasion of Iraq, one of the news services interviewed a fellow who's sole job was painting portraits of Saddam. "If there's war, I'll be out of work!"
I think the present system, using the NEA to distribute grants to local arts organizations that promote instruction, education, and training is pretty decent.
Direct government funding of artists, such as is done in Holland, gets a little strange.
I think there's a long tradition of governments funding "the arts", some with rather laughable results. Prior to our latest invasion of Iraq, one of the news services interviewed a fellow who's sole job was painting portraits of Saddam. "If there's war, I'll be out of work!"
I think the present system, using the NEA to distribute grants to local arts organizations that promote instruction, education, and training is pretty decent.
Direct government funding of artists, such as is done in Holland, gets a little strange.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Only if there are plenty of BM/WF pairings.
The answer, as I said, is NO. I've seen what government funds from the NEA and other government sources has led to, e.g.
- New York's Brooklyn Museum of Art, with an exhibit of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung.
- Serrano's "Piss Christ", a Crucifix in a beaker of urine
- Robert Mapplethorpe's homosexual images of himself being penetrated anally by a bullwhip , etc.
A lot of this is just porn. Chistianity as been singled out for especially vile and offensive attacks. Think about e.g. a catholic waitress single mom who is forced to contribute to this garbage with deductions from her paycheck. How many people to you REALLY think would pay to subsidize this stuff if they had a choice? When you see the dishonest NEA ads (usually on PBS), they show clips of such as the ABT performing "The Nutcracker" - as if things like that is the only place the money goes. I read a few years ago about some "theater" performed in SF - two guys with AIDS are on the stage - one guy somehow draws some real blood out of the other guy. He soaks it in a rag, and then clips it to some kind of trolly line that pulls it out over the surprised audience, dripping AIDS-infected blood.
These are the kinds of things that happen when tax money is used for the arts. With, say, opera tickets easily going for a few hundred dollars, arts fans of average means have to carefully consider what to leave in and what to leave out. But the bureaucrats who have at different times run the NEA, etc, can indulge their ideological lunacy, since the money doesn't come from THEIR wallets. Fortunately, as I understand it, a Bush appointee currently runs the NEA, so that means the urine, feces, and blood artists have a hiatus - probably until/if Lurch gets elected.
- New York's Brooklyn Museum of Art, with an exhibit of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung.
- Serrano's "Piss Christ", a Crucifix in a beaker of urine
- Robert Mapplethorpe's homosexual images of himself being penetrated anally by a bullwhip , etc.
A lot of this is just porn. Chistianity as been singled out for especially vile and offensive attacks. Think about e.g. a catholic waitress single mom who is forced to contribute to this garbage with deductions from her paycheck. How many people to you REALLY think would pay to subsidize this stuff if they had a choice? When you see the dishonest NEA ads (usually on PBS), they show clips of such as the ABT performing "The Nutcracker" - as if things like that is the only place the money goes. I read a few years ago about some "theater" performed in SF - two guys with AIDS are on the stage - one guy somehow draws some real blood out of the other guy. He soaks it in a rag, and then clips it to some kind of trolly line that pulls it out over the surprised audience, dripping AIDS-infected blood.
These are the kinds of things that happen when tax money is used for the arts. With, say, opera tickets easily going for a few hundred dollars, arts fans of average means have to carefully consider what to leave in and what to leave out. But the bureaucrats who have at different times run the NEA, etc, can indulge their ideological lunacy, since the money doesn't come from THEIR wallets. Fortunately, as I understand it, a Bush appointee currently runs the NEA, so that means the urine, feces, and blood artists have a hiatus - probably until/if Lurch gets elected.
Asking whether we favor tax-funded art is not the same as asking whether we like everything that's put forward as art. Patrick lists a few items that got some publicity because of the fact that they contain bodily excreta or suggest homosexuality. The vast majority of public and private arts funding supports much more conventional work.Patrick said:
Most artists and institutions in this country depend on private money for their sustenance. Many states and cities set aside some money for public art, and the NEA, as the most publicized federal funder, dispenses relatively modest amounts – nothing like the heavy funding provided by some nations. This seems to fit better with the general lack of interest in the arts that pervades the U.S. Of course, if arts were more available, interest might rise. But let's face it, we can exist without art, and this informs the attitudes of many toward arts funding.
Asking whether we favor tax-funded art is not the same as asking whether we like everything that's put forward as art.
First of all - there's no "we" - what you like and what I like and what someone else likes can be completely different. Also, you are mischievously trivializing the issue when you implicity recast "is horribly insulted and offended by" to "doesn't like". Finally, the former ("tax-funded art") necessarily implies the latter (not liking everything), not even considering your understatement.
Patrick
You mean "YOU" - here, you try to say it - YOUUUUUU .... Youuuuuuuuuuuuuu......
lists a few items that got some publicity because of the fact that they contain bodily excreta or suggest homosexuality. The vast majority of public and private arts funding supports much more conventional work.
There are a lot more items. This is also illogical - when you go to the grocery store, would you be upset if the grocer insisted on including "a few items" that you didn't ask for, don't want, and even are repulsive to you, and required that you pay for them? Would it change things if he pointed out that they amount to a small part of the total bill?
Most artists and institutions in this country depend on private money for their sustenance. Many states and cities set aside some money for public art, and the NEA, as the most publicized federal funder, dispenses relatively modest amounts – nothing like the heavy funding provided by some nations.
This is true of the NEA, but beside the point. In fact it reinforces my point that government funding isn't needed. The comparison with other nations is also neither here nor there. Government funding often produces crud - e.g., the U.S. has many public buildings from the 1930's which still have primitive, cartoonish murals in the socialist realism style of the times, financed by Roosevelt's WPA - they are a prime historical example of the politically correct art that flows from government funding.
This seems to fit better with the general lack of interest in the arts that pervades the U.S. Of course, if arts were more available, interest might rise.
I don't know where you get the lack of interest idea - considering the performing arts, I read somewhere that the U.S. has more symphony orchestras than all of western europe combined, and the U.S. is renowned in such areas as dance. These arts groups don't perform for themselves.
But let's face it, we can exist without art, and this informs the attitudes of many toward arts funding.
(There's that "we" again.) I would consider existence without real art to be very boring. Every time I think that pop culture entertainment can't possibly become more banal, PC, or stupid it reaches a new low, making the serious arts all the more important to me. I feel guilty when I pay only $10 for a student rush ticket to, say, a performance of ABT, and when I pay full price, I know some wealthy person is really paying two thirds of the cost and I'm only paying one third. The issue isn't funding per se but rather government funding. When average people hear about the NEA lunacy of past years, they may be turned off of the idea of any funding, as well as support for the arts by themslves.
First of all - there's no "we" - what you like and what I like and what someone else likes can be completely different. Also, you are mischievously trivializing the issue when you implicity recast "is horribly insulted and offended by" to "doesn't like". Finally, the former ("tax-funded art") necessarily implies the latter (not liking everything), not even considering your understatement.
Patrick
You mean "YOU" - here, you try to say it - YOUUUUUU .... Youuuuuuuuuuuuuu......
lists a few items that got some publicity because of the fact that they contain bodily excreta or suggest homosexuality. The vast majority of public and private arts funding supports much more conventional work.
There are a lot more items. This is also illogical - when you go to the grocery store, would you be upset if the grocer insisted on including "a few items" that you didn't ask for, don't want, and even are repulsive to you, and required that you pay for them? Would it change things if he pointed out that they amount to a small part of the total bill?
Most artists and institutions in this country depend on private money for their sustenance. Many states and cities set aside some money for public art, and the NEA, as the most publicized federal funder, dispenses relatively modest amounts – nothing like the heavy funding provided by some nations.
This is true of the NEA, but beside the point. In fact it reinforces my point that government funding isn't needed. The comparison with other nations is also neither here nor there. Government funding often produces crud - e.g., the U.S. has many public buildings from the 1930's which still have primitive, cartoonish murals in the socialist realism style of the times, financed by Roosevelt's WPA - they are a prime historical example of the politically correct art that flows from government funding.
This seems to fit better with the general lack of interest in the arts that pervades the U.S. Of course, if arts were more available, interest might rise.
I don't know where you get the lack of interest idea - considering the performing arts, I read somewhere that the U.S. has more symphony orchestras than all of western europe combined, and the U.S. is renowned in such areas as dance. These arts groups don't perform for themselves.
But let's face it, we can exist without art, and this informs the attitudes of many toward arts funding.
(There's that "we" again.) I would consider existence without real art to be very boring. Every time I think that pop culture entertainment can't possibly become more banal, PC, or stupid it reaches a new low, making the serious arts all the more important to me. I feel guilty when I pay only $10 for a student rush ticket to, say, a performance of ABT, and when I pay full price, I know some wealthy person is really paying two thirds of the cost and I'm only paying one third. The issue isn't funding per se but rather government funding. When average people hear about the NEA lunacy of past years, they may be turned off of the idea of any funding, as well as support for the arts by themslves.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
The constitution gives congress the authority to fund the useful arts. What did our founding fathers mean by that. They specifically said "useful" and not just arts.
Did they just mean science? One could infer that fairly easily. Are there any writings pertaining to their intent?
Did they just mean science? One could infer that fairly easily. Are there any writings pertaining to their intent?
The constitution gives congress the authority to fund the useful arts.
I am pretty sure that in late eigthteenth century usage that would correspond roughly to what we now refer to as technology.
Also, the issue isn't so much constitutionality as it is prudent government spending.
I am pretty sure that in late eigthteenth century usage that would correspond roughly to what we now refer to as technology.
Also, the issue isn't so much constitutionality as it is prudent government spending.
Hand Bent Spoon
Unregistered
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 378
No, the government should not fund 'impractical' art (paintings, sculpture, dance, music). Practical art, like architecture for government buildings (and lets face it, architecture is more a science with a veneer of art than it is a pure, 'impractical' art) is different, as it is actually of some use beyond simply being appreciated.
One argument I see a lot from the pro-funding side is that without government funding, art will disappear from our society. Completely, unequivocally untrue. An outright, knowing lie, in fact.
And doing something "because other countries do it" is no argument at all. America is the greatest country on earth, partly because we do things differently from how other, less successful countries do them. That sounds extremely jingoistic, but it happens to be true.
One argument I see a lot from the pro-funding side is that without government funding, art will disappear from our society. Completely, unequivocally untrue. An outright, knowing lie, in fact.
And doing something "because other countries do it" is no argument at all. America is the greatest country on earth, partly because we do things differently from how other, less successful countries do them. That sounds extremely jingoistic, but it happens to be true.
Is this the same old do-away-with-taxes rant?
My take on public funding is that if, as you do, most of the people in a society want art in their lives or at least want it available on demand, they need to understand that artists need a little ongoing sustenance to keep them working as they find their way and during times when private funding fluctuates greatly. Art isn't an essential commodity, so money for it drops out of budgets early on when dollars are scarce. Even so, the artists have to go on working, or the art won't be there when we're ready for it again. If you disagree with who gets public arts money, it's a good idea to make it known to the folks who dole out the grants or to become a member of your local arts-funding board(s).
And if someone wrote about being "horribly insulted and offended" by something, I didn't catch that line. But if they did say it, I'm confident I'd be correct in saying they also didn't like whatever it was.
Of course there's a "we." You asked all of us out here in internet land whether we favor public funding of art. But apparently you mostly want to disagree with some items produced by NEA-funded artists. Welcome to the great debate about what's art and what's not, what's good art and what's bad art, who can do it and who can't, etc. It's as fun as arguing religion.Patrick said:
My take on public funding is that if, as you do, most of the people in a society want art in their lives or at least want it available on demand, they need to understand that artists need a little ongoing sustenance to keep them working as they find their way and during times when private funding fluctuates greatly. Art isn't an essential commodity, so money for it drops out of budgets early on when dollars are scarce. Even so, the artists have to go on working, or the art won't be there when we're ready for it again. If you disagree with who gets public arts money, it's a good idea to make it known to the folks who dole out the grants or to become a member of your local arts-funding board(s).
And if someone wrote about being "horribly insulted and offended" by something, I didn't catch that line. But if they did say it, I'm confident I'd be correct in saying they also didn't like whatever it was.
Of course there's a "we." You asked all of us out here in internet land whether we favor public funding of art.
The point is that for some reason that I don't understand, a number of people in these forums, don't respond to me, but instead turn to the peanut gallery and say "Patrick says ...". Then they refer to themselves as "we". As far as I'm aware, you weren't appointed forum spokesman, so use the words "I" and "you".
Welcome to the great debate about what's art and what's not, what's good art and what's bad art, who can do it and who can't, etc. It's as fun as arguing religion.
I know all about that debate, and it's one of the big reasons thatr ALL shouldn't have to pay for what only SOME like, which only happens when government taxes people to support art.
My take on public funding is that if, as you do, most of the people in a society want art in their lives or at least want it available on demand, they need to understand that artists need a little ongoing sustenance to keep them working as they find their way and during times when private funding fluctuates greatly. Art isn't an essential commodity, so money for it drops out of budgets early on when dollars are scarce. Even so, the artists have to go on working, or the art won't be there when we're ready for it again.
All this will completely be taken care of by the market -- if people want a good or service, they have to pay what is required for it to be provided - it's as simple as that.
If you disagree with who gets public arts money, it's a good idea to make it known to the folks who dole out the grants or to become a member of your local arts-funding board(s).
You're batting just about .000 in getting the point - better is to abolish the government boards and refund the taxes they dole out to the politically connected or politically correct, so that the people can vote with their own dollars what art they want.
The point is that for some reason that I don't understand, a number of people in these forums, don't respond to me, but instead turn to the peanut gallery and say "Patrick says ...". Then they refer to themselves as "we". As far as I'm aware, you weren't appointed forum spokesman, so use the words "I" and "you".
Welcome to the great debate about what's art and what's not, what's good art and what's bad art, who can do it and who can't, etc. It's as fun as arguing religion.
I know all about that debate, and it's one of the big reasons thatr ALL shouldn't have to pay for what only SOME like, which only happens when government taxes people to support art.
My take on public funding is that if, as you do, most of the people in a society want art in their lives or at least want it available on demand, they need to understand that artists need a little ongoing sustenance to keep them working as they find their way and during times when private funding fluctuates greatly. Art isn't an essential commodity, so money for it drops out of budgets early on when dollars are scarce. Even so, the artists have to go on working, or the art won't be there when we're ready for it again.
All this will completely be taken care of by the market -- if people want a good or service, they have to pay what is required for it to be provided - it's as simple as that.
If you disagree with who gets public arts money, it's a good idea to make it known to the folks who dole out the grants or to become a member of your local arts-funding board(s).
You're batting just about .000 in getting the point - better is to abolish the government boards and refund the taxes they dole out to the politically connected or politically correct, so that the people can vote with their own dollars what art they want.
Besides architecture, what constitutes “practical art� Is any endeavor requiring knowledge of construction techniques and/or the services of fabricators in its accomplishment to be considered practical art?Hand Bent Spoon said:
Would you like to abolish from our public schools classes in literature, art, and music, along with interscholastic athletics, cheer-leading, drill teams, and marching bands? Should the federal government sell off its holdings of historical art, furniture, buildings, and national parks and monuments or at least forego further maintenance of them? Should the Marine Corp band be replaced by Secret Service agents with kazoos (that they buy themselves) during state dinners?
Should cities do away with public libraries, except maybe for offering a collection of auto-repair manuals and the like, and sell off swimming pools, public parks, and bike and walking trails to real-estate developers?
Should the city be spending money to enforce aesthetic statutes, such as no parking of old cars in yards or RVs and boats in front driveways, or letting houses show too many signs of disrepair, or grass too tall?
Nobody likes them taxes, do they?
By the way, Patrick, Mr. Shanek makes this no-taxes argument a bit more effectively than you have so far. It’s his specialty. And I hope my pronouns are to your liking. That’s your liking.
Pardon me, Patrick. I thought you just had a bone to pick with the NEA, but you are really fretting over taxes in general. I, too, Patrick. I don’t want to fund anything I don’t use. I don’t want to give tax breaks to churches or pay for public schools, branch libraries in other parts of town, highways in states I will never visit, national parks I have already seen, veterans’ hospitals, medical studies having to do with problems exclusive to women, street repairs in neighborhoods where mostly minorities live, public swimming pools, Medicare for your parents or for you (nothing personal in this – it’s just that you and your folks aren’t I). And the list goes on.
By the way, Patrick, Mr. Shanek makes this no-taxes argument a bit more effectively than you have so far. It’s his specialty. And I hope my pronouns are to your liking. That’s your liking.
Would you like to abolish from our public schools classes in literature, art, and music, along with interscholastic athletics, cheer-leading, drill teams, and marching bands? Should the federal government sell off its holdings of historical art, furniture, buildings, and national parks and monuments or at least forego further maintenance of them?
If I may be allowed to answer this: I am a libertarian - before I was answering within the terms and context of a democratic polity. As a libertarian, I think there ought to be no such thing as a government school. But back to the democratic context, I see no reason why I should have to pay the education bills of parents, any more than they should have to pay for my ski vacation. I AM, within the democratic context, willing to pay for the education of poor children. A lot of marching bands in high schools have their funds raised by the bands themselves - I know, I was in it in high school. And I assure you, the Republic won't collapse in the absence of a bunch of ditsy cheerleaders.
The government SHOULD sell off a lot of its pretentious and unnecessary buildings. I'd start with the Supreme Court building, modeled after a greek temple, and frequented by "justices"
D) who walk around in robes, as if they were priests, and sit in high backed chairs! No wonder they've developed the Olympian attitude in which they, not the Constitution, is the law! Their building and their robes should be confiscated, they should be renamed "judges", given a businesslike office to hold court and required to wear regular business clothes to work. Likewise with a lot of other temples of government worship.
Should cities do away with public libraries, except maybe for offering a collection of auto-repair manuals and the like, and sell off swimming pools, public parks, and bike and walking trails to real-estate developers?
Gosh, how did you get on this stemwinder? I don't remember being offended by a swimming pool or public park. (??)
Should the city be spending money to enforce aesthetic statutes, such as no parking of old cars in yards or RVs and boats in front driveways, or letting houses show too many signs of disrepair, or grass too tall?
They do in my city - everyone who buys in signs Covenants, Conditiond and Restrictions - works fine!
Pardon me, Patrick. I thought you just had a bone to pick with the NEA, but you are really fretting over taxes in general. I, too, Patrick. I don’t want to fund anything I don’t use. I don’t want to give tax breaks to churches or pay for public schools, branch libraries in other parts of town, highways in states I will never visit, national parks I have already seen, veterans’ hospitals, medical studies having to do with problems exclusive to women, street repairs in neighborhoods where mostly minorities live, public swimming pools, Medicare for your parents or for you (nothing personal in this – it’s just that you and your folks aren’t I). And the list goes on.
Welcome to the libertarians! They agree with you, and so do I!
By the way, Patrick, Mr. Shanek makes this no-taxes argument a bit more effectively than you have so far. It’s his specialty. And I hope my pronouns are to your liking. That’s your liking.
Well good - whatever works! And your pronouns are fine!
If I may be allowed to answer this: I am a libertarian - before I was answering within the terms and context of a democratic polity. As a libertarian, I think there ought to be no such thing as a government school. But back to the democratic context, I see no reason why I should have to pay the education bills of parents, any more than they should have to pay for my ski vacation. I AM, within the democratic context, willing to pay for the education of poor children. A lot of marching bands in high schools have their funds raised by the bands themselves - I know, I was in it in high school. And I assure you, the Republic won't collapse in the absence of a bunch of ditsy cheerleaders.
The government SHOULD sell off a lot of its pretentious and unnecessary buildings. I'd start with the Supreme Court building, modeled after a greek temple, and frequented by "justices"
D) who walk around in robes, as if they were priests, and sit in high backed chairs! No wonder they've developed the Olympian attitude in which they, not the Constitution, is the law! Their building and their robes should be confiscated, they should be renamed "judges", given a businesslike office to hold court and required to wear regular business clothes to work. Likewise with a lot of other temples of government worship.Should cities do away with public libraries, except maybe for offering a collection of auto-repair manuals and the like, and sell off swimming pools, public parks, and bike and walking trails to real-estate developers?
Gosh, how did you get on this stemwinder? I don't remember being offended by a swimming pool or public park. (??)
Should the city be spending money to enforce aesthetic statutes, such as no parking of old cars in yards or RVs and boats in front driveways, or letting houses show too many signs of disrepair, or grass too tall?
They do in my city - everyone who buys in signs Covenants, Conditiond and Restrictions - works fine!
Pardon me, Patrick. I thought you just had a bone to pick with the NEA, but you are really fretting over taxes in general. I, too, Patrick. I don’t want to fund anything I don’t use. I don’t want to give tax breaks to churches or pay for public schools, branch libraries in other parts of town, highways in states I will never visit, national parks I have already seen, veterans’ hospitals, medical studies having to do with problems exclusive to women, street repairs in neighborhoods where mostly minorities live, public swimming pools, Medicare for your parents or for you (nothing personal in this – it’s just that you and your folks aren’t I). And the list goes on.
Welcome to the libertarians! They agree with you, and so do I!
By the way, Patrick, Mr. Shanek makes this no-taxes argument a bit more effectively than you have so far. It’s his specialty. And I hope my pronouns are to your liking. That’s your liking.
Well good - whatever works! And your pronouns are fine!