At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
No, not really, there are way to many other needs that are directly in service to people. With cut backs in health care, food progarms for the poor, there are for too many other needs for government tax dollars.
Also ones person art is sometimes against moral values of another person.
Plato once said, "Exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body. Knowledge, which is acquired under coercion, obtains no hold on the mind." You can not force someone to think. You may be well versed in appreciating the theatrical works of Shakespeare, but not every one is. You can't thrust upon people art that has no meaning or relevance to their lives.
Giving money to artistic projects is a noble deed. Giving other people's money is not. To fund the arts with government money, that money has to be taken by force.
If the government wants to rob people to support someone' way of life? Sorry, I can't agree with it!
Quote:
Also ones person art is sometimes against moral values of another person.
It is an archaic idea. Back in the Middle Ages ,when all the wealth was concentrated in the Church ,it was the church that was the patron of the arts. In the days of the absolute monarchy the same situation applied . Since then capital and wealth has spread to the private sector and in a free society it is there where the arts should be mostly funded . The big exception of course would be the decorating of public edifices and parks etc. That should be open to the competitive bidding process.Also the funding of providing and maintaining museums for public display of the arts is acceptable along with private sector efforts.
In the United States less than 10% of the arts is publicly funded . Too often it becomes the issue of controversy. The National Endowment for the Arts was created in 1965 to primarily fund arts at the Federal level although other agencies also shell out $$ also.
States and local governments also have to some extent funded art.
Quote:
Would you please describe the kind of artistic projects are you asking about?
Clough makes a valid point with this question .What resources should be committed to supporting art that is not popular? Does art deserve to be supported if there are not sufficient patronage for it to survive on its own in the private sector ? Should we fund arts with controversial subjects ? Who decides this ?Should religious art be subsidized? Should art attacking religion receive public funding ?
My opinion is that all the arts thrive in the US with very little public funding for their venture. I think the competitive process helps the creative process. Unconventional art in the theater and performing arts as well painting sculpture etc. still finds a home in our diverse market place.
Should we establish more government funding to support artistic projects?
Merry Christmas!
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!
First of all, as I have mentioned in the past, from a constitutional standpoint, the US government only has the right to tax the population for 4 purposes:
1) Establishment and maintenance of a military/police force
2) Establishment, maintenance and upkeep of roads
3) Establishment and maintenance of a mail system (and in modern days a telephone and internet infrastructure, since those take the place of mail in modern times)
4) Establishment and maintenenace of a court system.
There is no constitutional requirement for funding the arts, or music, or anything else... including a welfare system.
Second, there's the question of whether the government could support religious art of any kind, since there is an ongoing sepparation of church and state debate going on. And funding "anti-religious" art is the same thing.
Third, the line between art and pornography is sometimes blurred. Who makes the decisions as to what should and should not be funded by the government? Who draws the line and where should it be drawn?
Fourth, when the idea of congressional spending being out of control is such a huge issue right now, why would anyone create more unncecessary government funding projects?
Perhaps in days gone by, maybe, but today I think it's a ridiculous idea to fund "artistic" projects that have no redeeming value. It offends me that my tax dollars have supported such stellar works as $15,000 for “Piss Christ,” Serrano's photograph of a crucifix in urine and $30,000 for “The Perfect Moment,” Mapplethorpe's homoerotic and sadomasochistic display.
If you ask me, people like Mapplethorpe, Serrano and "performance artist" Karen Finley can either get a real job, sell their work, raise private funds or sell tickets. Don't expect me to pay for their offensive "art," or have it displayed in government buildings.
Your complaint seems to be about bad art, at least as you judge good or bad art.
To quote from Aristotle for instance… it is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre-players are produced. And the corresponding statement is true of builders and of all the rest; men will be good or bad builders as a result of building well or badly. For if this were not so, there would have been no need of a teacher, but all men would have been born good or bad at their craft.
If we look at the various Arts, medical art, political art, and all the other Arts, they have one thing in common…excellence. The most valuable possession is that which is worth most, e.g. gold, but the most valuable work of art is that which is great and beautiful (for the contemplation of such a work inspires admiration, and so does magnificence); and a work has an excellence-viz. magnificence-which involves magnitude. Magnificence is an attribute of expenditures of the kind which we call honorable.
The question that comes to my mind is whether we are really talking about art at all. For surly the things you have mentioned do not fit the criteria Aristotle defined as art.
Your complaint seems to be about bad art, at least as you judge good or bad art...The question that comes to my mind is whether we are really talking about art at all. For surly the things you have mentioned do not fit the criteria Aristotle defined as art.
Well, I can find nothing I could describe as "excellence" and certainly not "great and beautiful" about "Piss Christ."
On the other hand, being a musician I do understand the value of art and promoting the arts, even with public funds. I think it is honorable to provide public funding within reason on things such as education and preservation. I draw the line at funding someone's personal "artistic" vision.
Linear Mode
