government funding of art/culture

[Ultraworld]

What do we think about government subsidies for art and culture?
eg: Think about the government funding a local theatre-company or a plastic artist.

I'm against it. I'll give some reasons why:

1.There is already a very very very (yes 3 times) large non-subsidised supply of art and culture. eg:
- music (it is unbelievable how many non-subsidised music there is, from the most bizar electronic experiments to folk from the north-pole)
- magazines
- movies
- dance parties and rock concerts
- books
- etc.
There is really no need for the government to add extra money to it.

2. Art/culture is very subjective. No one can decide what is better or worser than something else. The only one who can decide that are the consumers on the free market.

3. Things like opera might dissapear.
You might ask your self wether that would be a big disaster. However I don't think it will disapear. Prices might rise, maybe less operas but so what?

4. Culture/art isn't imposed (opressed ??) from above. It comes out of the people.

En example is belgium: no funding for bands but still belgium brings forth a lot of good bands (eg dEUS).

So I want a drastical reduction of government funding for art and culture. The only things which might keep their gov-funding are things on the UN-World-Heritage-list and some musea.

 

[Mise]

Oddly enough, I've thought about this a lot recently in my quest for an (idealised) minimal state socialist government.

You have made some good points, but it is also true to say that without government funding, libraries and museums will not be accessible to poor people. The great thing about libraries is that it allows anyone to learn about anything. If they are not funded by the government, they are not free, and they lose this ability of universal self-education.

I know you were mainly thinking about the theatre, but a (similar) arguement would apply there as poor people would be denied (further) such art and culture (think about how Shakespeare's plays brought people of different social classes together under one... umm... roof for a low cost).

 

[Ultraworld]

Libraries are (IMO) not part of the art/culture I was talking about. Libraries are part of the education and science department.

(think about how Shakespeare's plays brought people of different social classes together under one... umm... roof for a low cost).

The Rolling Stones do that too.

 

[Mise]

Well, I don't think the Rolling Stones are particularly inexpensive. You couldn't see them every week for example. Also, it is questionable that the Rolling Stones (or any major, accessible band past or present) is really "art". Businesses fund what is profitable, not what is art. Art is for philanthropists to fund. People which do a great deal for music in terms of "art" generally don't earn much money, since art and popular culture generally don't mix too well.

As for libraries, fair enough, but what about museums? They perform similar functions -- to educate people, but generally fall under "arts and culture", since there is an equal amount of science content in museums as arts content.

Personally, I feel that arts and culture should be accessible to all people, rich and poor, and this would not happen without healthy donations from someone, be it government of philanthropists. If you take away government funding of the arts, many theatre and film companies will disappear and rob the world of what might be the greatest thing since Shakespeare.

 

[Ultraworld]

Well, I don't think the Rolling Stones are particularly inexpensive. You couldn't see them every week for example.

point is that they bring people, poor and rich, together.

Also, it is questionable that the Rolling Stones (or any major, accessible band past or present) is really "art".

No one can decide what is art. It is very subjective

Businesses fund what is profitable, not what is art. Art is for philanthropists to fund. People which do a great deal for music in terms of "art" generally don't earn much money, since art and popular culture generally don't mix too well.

Music has made a lot of artists rich: eg Rolling Stones, U2, Beatles and Underworld. But like everything (sport, business), there is a rich minority who is in and a mayority who is not.

Anyway: Wether they mix well or not, wether it makes you rich or not . . . it does exist (see my 1st point in the opening post).

As for libraries, fair enough, but what about museums? They perform similar functions -- to educate people, but generally fall under "arts and culture", since there is an equal amount of science content in museums as arts content.

I don't want to get completely rid of subsidies:
"The only things which might keep their gov-funding are things on the UN-World-Heritage-list and some musea."

Personally, I feel that arts and culture should be accessible to all people, rich and poor, and this would not happen without healthy donations from someone, be it government of philanthropists.

There is already a lot of art/culture accesible for rich & poor.

If you take away government funding of the arts, many theatre and film companies will disappear and rob the world of what might be the greatest thing since Shakespeare.

that is very subjective.
eg: I really don't like theatre, a lot of stupid people on a stage behaving very unrealistic.

btw: Shakespeare didn't receive government funding but wrote for the market.

 

[stormbind]

No one can decide what is art. It is very subjective

Sometimes, but art is not mass produced

I think governments should find better things to spend public money on. There will always be art.

Governments should protect old/classic/irreplaceable examples, but stay well away from new stuff.

 

[luiz]

@Mise
Good point, libraries should be state funded(However, sadly, most people who go to libraries are middle-class people who could afford to buy books).

Other then that, I'm 100% against all and any government subsidy in arts or culture. This is one of the areas I feel the most strongly about keeping the government out(and out of my wallet).

 

[Archer 007]

Im against government art funding, but feel it should run public libraries and museums.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It seems rather silly to have no problem with the government spending trillions on weaponry, and then grumble because it throws a few bucks at artists.

 

[Ultraworld]

Im against government art funding, but feel it should run public libraries and museums.

exactly my point

 

[Ultraworld]

It seems rather silly to have no problem with the government spending trillions on weaponry, and then grumble because it throws a few bucks at artists.

a very false argument

 

[Bozo Erectus]

How is it false? The amount of money spent on the arts is miniscule when compared with the rest of the budget. Its probably less than one tenth of one percent of the overall budget, but it benefits the entire society.

 

[Mise]

Sometimes, but art is not mass produced

I think governments should find better things to spend public money on. There will always be art.

Governments should protect old/classic/irreplaceable examples, but stay well away from new stuff.

Thing is, if we don't protect the new works of art, music and literature, in 200 years time, there will be no classics.

It is a sad fact that most great art isn't recognised until the artist is dead, and whilst I don't really care about art or culture greatly, I can't help but think that if there was none in the future, I would miss it.

Whereas most of you seem to distance art from science, I find many parallels. Businesses tend to fund scientific programmes which would give large gains in the short term, but are less willing to fund long term projects with high initial investment. Take cold fusion for example. If the government doesn't fund it, no one will, until oil runs out and we HAVE to fund it. In short, businesses have little forsight when it comes to scientific research. The same holds true for the general public and art. While media like television and films and theatres might continue to exist, the people who are really changing things and moving things forward in art are not the people who the public are willing to pay to see the works of.

I haven't really put this very clearly, when I get time, I'll elaborate and clarify, but basically, I don't think the laws of economics know good art when it sees it, and so good art will die.

(and by "good art", I mean what will in 200 years be considered great art)

 

[JohnRM]

It is not the Government's job to fund arts and culture.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why not?

(ten character minimum sucks)

 

[JohnRM]

Because:

[1] In the U.S. it would be considered a violation of the Constitution...although they do it anyway, in some cases.
[2] The Government cannot be trusted; too much danger of governmental bias.
[3] I, as a taxpayer, do not want my money spent on such wasteful things.

 

[Free Enterprise]

The main question is: "Will good art survive if allowed to compete in the free market?"

I think the answer in this situation is yes. I view museums as a different type of issue not necessarily just because they are a different type of subject (history & science compared to art). Rare historical artifacts are easily damaged and cannot be reproduceded. Art is something a person decides to make and then works on. I think books will never have a problem in the free market even if relatively few people are interested in certain types/genres of books. The internet also is helping.

 

[Archer 007]

How is it false? The amount of money spent on the arts is miniscule when compared with the rest of the budget. Its probably less than one tenth of one percent of the overall budget, but it benefits the entire society.

Why should it be my responability to pay for people that are too lazy to get a real job?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Art has tremendous intrinsic value. It creates and enriches our culture. The government, as the caretaker of society, is responsible not only for policing its borders, but also for ensuring that the culture within those borders remains rich and vibrant.

 

[Mise]

The main question is: "Will good art survive if allowed to compete in the free market?"

I think the answer in this situation is yes. I view museums as a different type of issue not necessarily just because they are a different type of subject (history & science compared to art). Rare historical artifacts are easily damaged and cannot be reproduceded. Art is something a person decides to make and then works on. I think books will never have a problem in the free market even if relatively few people are interested in certain types/genres of books. The internet also is helping.

I disagree, since, historically, good art has typically not been recognised for a long time after the art has been created. Without government protection, the art would have dissappeared by the time it is recognised.