Should art get government subsidies ...

[Alceste]

Art won't be gone if gov subsidies disappear.

The Centre where I teach and the program I mentioned for seniors would be gone. Actually, the Centre may have to close by Christmas since several grants did not come through. I can still make money teaching private lessons, but the seniors usually decide it's too expensive and they don't progress quickly enough to maintain any hope of success (arthritis and deteriorating memory and motor skills).

The things I do for naked profit are not nearly as enriching for this community as the things I can do with the help of grant money. Privately, I can only teach people with a lot of disposable income. With grants, I can also teach poor people (and cheap people - I've got no illusions about some of those seniors).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Every great civilization has funded the arts. Having thriving arts was a hallmark of not only prosperity but civilization itself.

It is ironic that we, as a culture, spend so much effort trying to get rid of it.

People in power have always feared artists. No other group seems to have as much political power as the artist.
And our politicians have a lot be afraid of.

wa:do

*just to be up front about my biases... I am an artist.

I am currently giving group classes in jug band music to senior citizens thanks to a grant funded project with the aim of improving their quality of life, penetrating the social isolation seniors often experience, and keeping their minds sharp by teaching them new skills. The course is free, which ensures that a fixed income doesn't become an obstacle to participation. The instruments are also free - we bought them for the program and participants sign them out whenever they like, for as long as they like.

This is an example of what arts funding can do. Most community oriented art projects and centres rely heavily on grants. It's not all cocktails and ugly paintings. It's me, showing your grandma how to play Ukulele Lady. Teaching your kids how to build functional musical instruments out of junk they find lying around the house. My friend, an award winning graphic novelist, being able to take enough time of his catering job to write his third book. Funding for touring musicians is absolutely fundamental to all those folk festivals that generate tens of thousands of dollars worth of economic activity wherever they are held.

However much contempt you feel for artists and the arts, I guarantee you will miss it when it's gone. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure they don't feel that it's contempt, but that they find our lines of work unimportant to society. In other words, it's indifference about the arts rather than sheer hatred.

But where I see the contempt is when money is involved. The arts are seen as ancillary, extraneous, icing on the cake but certainly not the meat and potatoes of civilization. And that above all else, when a society is struggling, the first thing to go IS the arts because investing in it is seen as unnecessary.

Now....here is what I find interesting....

I hear so much *****ing and moaning about how movies are vapid and empty of emotion, how music has lost it's soul, how dancers are nothing more than bumping and grinding backdrops in music videos. So, when I hear the complaints about the lack of integrity in the arts, and how the recognition is that there's no money for artists to develop their work for society, I usually shrug and say, "Society is getting what it wants. Mass produced entertainment."

You want change? Take a break from all your CDs and iTunes library, stop watching Hollywood film, and go listen to the local guitarist at the corner cafe. Buy his CD. Watch live theatre at your local repetoire company.

So, as far as I can tell, I believe complaining about the lack of skill and creativity in modern forms of entertainment is counterproductive if the complaints also include keeping money out of the hands of the very people who can change the culture of mass produced entertainment into pure magic.

It's like complaining about how food sucks nowadays, and then telling everybody that good cooks won't do any good for society anyway.

 

[MoonWater]

I'm sure they don't feel that it's contempt, but that they find our lines of work unimportant to society. In other words, it's indifference about the arts rather than sheer hatred.

But where I see the contempt is when money is involved. The arts are seen as ancillary, extraneous, icing on the cake but certainly not the meat and potatoes of civilization. And that above all else, when a society is struggling, the first thing to go IS the arts because investing in it is seen as unnecessary.

Now....here is what I find interesting....

I hear so much *****ing and moaning about how movies are vapid and empty of emotion, how music has lost it's soul, how dancers are nothing more than bumping and grinding backdrops in music videos. So, when I hear the complaints about the lack of integrity in the arts, and how the recognition is that there's no money for artists to develop their work for society, I usually shrug and say, "Society is getting what it wants. Mass produced entertainment."

You want change? Take a break from all your CDs and iTunes library, stop watching Hollywood film, and go listen to the local guitarist at the corner cafe. Buy his CD. Watch live theatre at your local repetoire company.

So, as far as I can tell, I believe complaining about the lack of skill and creativity in modern forms of entertainment is counterproductive if the complaints also include keeping money out of the hands of the very people who can change the culture of mass produced entertainment into pure magic.

It's like complaining about how food sucks nowadays, and then telling everybody that good cooks won't do any good for society anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if the decline in skill in mass media arts could be directly related to the defunding of art programs in k-12 schools.

Makes me feel lucky that my chosen field of art is creative writing. Even if creative writing specific classes went away there would still be english. And I don't know how common this is but most every english class I had had at least one creative writing project, even if it was just for extra credit. Either way I don't have to worry about basic writing classes disappearing into the ether. Still I don't feel happy about being lucky like that, more sad that other arts are not able to receive at least some kind of similar shelter.

 

[Alceste]

I'm sure they don't feel that it's contempt, but that they find our lines of work unimportant to society. In other words, it's indifference about the arts rather than sheer hatred.

But where I see the contempt is when money is involved. The arts are seen as ancillary, extraneous, icing on the cake but certainly not the meat and potatoes of civilization. And that above all else, when a society is struggling, the first thing to go IS the arts because investing in it is seen as unnecessary.

Now....here is what I find interesting....

I hear so much *****ing and moaning about how movies are vapid and empty of emotion, how music has lost it's soul, how dancers are nothing more than bumping and grinding backdrops in music videos. So, when I hear the complaints about the lack of integrity in the arts, and how the recognition is that there's no money for artists to develop their work for society, I usually shrug and say, "Society is getting what it wants. Mass produced entertainment."

You want change? Take a break from all your CDs and iTunes library, stop watching Hollywood film, and go listen to the local guitarist at the corner cafe. Buy his CD. Watch live theatre at your local repetoire company.

So, as far as I can tell, I believe complaining about the lack of skill and creativity in modern forms of entertainment is counterproductive if the complaints also include keeping money out of the hands of the very people who can change the culture of mass produced entertainment into pure magic.

It's like complaining about how food sucks nowadays, and then telling everybody that good cooks won't do any good for society anyway.

I hear you. High quality art tends to be the last item on our list of things to see and do.

Procrastination « You Are Not So Smart

There's a reason a huge streaming pile of crap like "Battleship" doesn't need to tap into public funds but virtually all David Attenborough's incredible nature documentaries do. We prefer garbage. We can't help ourselves. The only thing standing between us and the type of civilization depicted by Idiocracy is public funding for the arts we are too intellectually lazy to pay for today ("maybe I'll get around to it tomorrow").

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm of the opinion that art should get government subsidies. All great civilizations throughout history encouraged their artists and helped them reach their full potential by aiding them. It didn't mean that scientists weren't taken care of as well; it just meant that one more cultural front was bolstered and helped to flourish alongside science.

The "science should be prioritized when it comes to governmental funding" argument, while seemingly intuitive, has several flaws, as far as I'm concerned:

• There are many homeless, unemployed, malnourished, and impoverished people in every country. Should governments cancel the subsidization of certain fields in order to allot the money to other endeavors, why isn't the same argument applied to those people? In the US, billions are spent on NASA to fund their researches, and the same goes for CERN in the European Union. If withdrawal of governmental funding of the arts to instead allot the money to scientific researches because they are "more important" is to be considered, I don't see any reason not to say the same about the billions spent on something like space research and some of them being directed at housing the homeless instead, for example.

• I don't think governmental subsidization of the arts and scientific research is an either-or situation; both can be leveraged in parallel rather than one taking up the funding of the other. One of them could have more money assigned to it than the other as needed, but that doesn't necessitate completely withdrawing the funding of either.

And since this discussion is supposedly about the US in particular, it seems a bit unfair to me for the arts to get the short end of the stick when it comes to funding while billions — hundreds of billions — were (and are) spent on unnecessary wars in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Arts aren't necessarily a waste of money any more than, say, sports are; that, however, is.

 

[Alceste]

I'm of the opinion that art should get government subsidies. All great civilizations throughout history encouraged their artists and helped them reach their full potential by aiding them. It didn't mean that scientists weren't taken care of as well; it just meant that one more cultural front was bolstered and helped to flourish alongside science.

The "science should be prioritized when it comes to governmental funding" argument, while seemingly intuitive, has several flaws, as far as I'm concerned:

• There are many homeless, unemployed, malnourished, and impoverished people in every country. Should governments cancel the subsidization of certain fields in order to allot the money to other endeavors, why isn't the same argument applied to those people? In the US, billions are spent on NASA to fund their researches, and the same goes for CERN in the European Union. If withdrawal of governmental funding of the arts to instead allot the money to scientific researches because they are "more important" is to be considered, I don't see any reason not to say the same about the billions spent on something like space research and some of them being directed at housing the homeless instead, for example.

• I don't think governmental subsidization of the arts and scientific research is an either-or situation; both can be leveraged in parallel rather than one taking up the funding of the other. One of them could have more money assigned to it than the other as needed, but that doesn't necessitate completely withdrawing the funding of either.

And since this discussion is supposedly about the US in particular, it seems a bit unfair to me for the arts to get the short end of the stick when it comes to funding while billions — hundreds of billions — were (and are) spent on unnecessary wars in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Arts aren't necessarily a waste of money any more than, say, sports are; that, however, is.

Ah yes, the trillion dollar war. Call that a waste of money and the very same people who
shriek at the idea of a few thousands dollars to subsidize a dance company will argue until they're blue in the face that Saddam had to be stopped, whatever the cost.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Centre where I teach and the program I mentioned for seniors would be gone. Actually, the Centre may have to close by Christmas since several grants did not come through. I can still make money teaching private lessons, but the seniors usually decide it's too expensive and they don't progress quickly enough to maintain any hope of success (arthritis and deteriorating memory and motor skills).
The things I do for naked profit are not nearly as enriching for this community as the things I can do with the help of grant money. Privately, I can only teach people with a lot of disposable income. With grants, I can also teach poor people (and cheap people - I've got no illusions about some of those seniors).

I see a big difference between funding art, & funding grade school art education & art as therapy.
The latter is more directly useful.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I see a big difference between funding art, & funding grade school art education & art as therapy.
The latter is more directly useful.

Do you mean funding exposition versus education?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you mean funding exposition versus education?

Yeah....there's the word I think I was looking for!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm of the opinion that art should get government subsidies. All great civilizations throughout history encouraged their artists and helped them reach their full potential by aiding them. It didn't mean that scientists weren't taken care of as well; it just meant that one more cultural front was bolstered and helped to flourish alongside science.

The "science should be prioritized when it comes to governmental funding" argument, while seemingly intuitive, has several flaws, as far as I'm concerned:

• There are many homeless, unemployed, malnourished, and impoverished people in every country. Should governments cancel the subsidization of certain fields in order to allot the money to other endeavors, why isn't the same argument applied to those people? In the US, billions are spent on NASA to fund their researches, and the same goes for CERN in the European Union. If withdrawal of governmental funding of the arts to instead allot the money to scientific researches because they are "more important" is to be considered, I don't see any reason not to say the same about the billions spent on something like space research and some of them being directed at housing the homeless instead, for example.

• I don't think governmental subsidization of the arts and scientific research is an either-or situation; both can be leveraged in parallel rather than one taking up the funding of the other. One of them could have more money assigned to it than the other as needed, but that doesn't necessitate completely withdrawing the funding of either.

And since this discussion is supposedly about the US in particular, it seems a bit unfair to me for the arts to get the short end of the stick when it comes to funding while billions — hundreds of billions — were (and are) spent on unnecessary wars in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Arts aren't necessarily a waste of money any more than, say, sports are; that, however, is.

To be fair, NASA has been seeing cut after cut after cut for years, with the same argument being offered that space exploration does nothing for society and that our tax dollars should go toward more worthy causes.

I usually tell the astronomer to pull up a chair and join me for a drink.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To be fair, NASA has been seeing cut after cut after cut for years, with the same argument being offered that space exploration does nothing for society and that our tax dollars should go toward more worthy causes.

I usually tell the astronomer to pull up a chair and join me for a drink.

They still get billions of dollars in funding, though. I think it'd become an issue if and only if the cuts were detrimental to the researches they're doing.

Hey... how does a Big Squishy Hug come along in spaaaaaaace?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah....there's the word I think I was looking for!

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that exhibition is part and parcel of the entire package. It's difficult to educate people on art without injecting the element of exposition.

For instance, I teach dance with a few elements in mind including what people are looking for. Right now, the most popular program is the "class card" system where students sign up for technique-only classes, and students are not given opportunities to perform or compete. So far, it's hands down our most popular option. People love coming to class just to move without any expectation of going on stage.

We do have dancers that are now enrolling into programs that put them on stage, however, which requires a whole new skill set and time commitment. I teach and develop the dancers, the instructors, and the show(s) based on the premise that there is a difference between learning how to move and learning how to perform with those movements.

Our last upsell program involves the full development of the performance technician into the artist, giving them tools for composition, critical analysis and observational skills, and discovering how they themselves are unique.

What we're seeing economically is that the masses are very content to invest in arts education. They want to learn how to move with balance, coordination, and to learn the latest hip hop moves and have fun.

What most people forget is that leading that class is an instructor who was required to be educated in performance in order to demonstrate and communicate the dynamics and the message of the movement. And leading the instructor is the director who was required to be educated in developing the whole artist in order to guide the staff/cast/crew in analysis and observation.

My point is that arts education does not live in a vacuum. Without a qualified instructor and/or director to teach how to dance, you get something like this:

[youtube]rfiM038VtJg[/youtube]
Learn Club Dance - Girls Night Out Preview! Club Skills to Dance Sexy - YouTube

And over time, the public begins to believe this is the pinnacle of dance education.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

They still get billions of dollars in funding, though. I think it'd become an issue if and only if the cuts were detrimental to the researches they're doing.

Hey... how does a Big Squishy Hug come along in spaaaaaaace?

LOL

Let's compare government funding of the sciences overall, just for fun. And then show just how much a drop in the bucket the NEA receives:

Source for Science funding figures
Source for NEA figure

Defense - $56,224,000,000
Life Sciences - $29,299,000,000
Engineering - $8,907,000,000
Physical Sciences - $5,593,000,000
Environmental Sciences - $3,352,000,000
Math and Computer Sciences - $3,333,000,000
Psychology - $1,852,000,000
Social Sciences - $1,123,000,000
All other combined - $1,341,000,000
National Endowment of the Arts - $155,000,000

Billions and billions and billions of dollars compared to what the NEA receives in comparison, and people still want to pick on the little guy?

Here's something interesting that I read in the Scientific American link from above:

When the dollars are plotted by agency, department and selected organizations within departments, interesting patterns emerge: defense swamps all other recipients. The country spends as much on fossil energy as it does on renewable energy and efficiency. It invests more in nuclear energy than it does in all of agriculture. Some members of the new Congress have already vowed to cut all nonmilitary R&D. 

Oh, really?

Looks like according to the government, not all the sciences are considered equal, either. If we continue down this road, after the artists are all gone, we'll also begin to find no interest in education, in the humanities, in mathematics and the earth sciences, and we'll convince ourselves that the only worthy investments are drilling for fossil fuels and manufacturing really big weapons.

For anyone who insists I'm using the slippery slope fallacy, tell me....is this not already happening?

 

[Revoltingest]

The killing sciences always do pretty well.

 

[Debater Slayer]

LOL

Let's compare government funding of the sciences overall, just for fun. And then show just how much a drop in the bucket the NEA receives:

Source for Science funding figures
Source for NEA figure

Defense - $56,224,000,000
Life Sciences - $29,299,000,000
Engineering - $8,907,000,000
Physical Sciences - $5,593,000,000
Environmental Sciences - $3,352,000,000
Math and Computer Sciences - $3,333,000,000
Psychology - $1,852,000,000
Social Sciences - $1,123,000,000
All other combined - $1,341,000,000
National Endowment of the Arts - $155,000,000

Billions and billions and billions of dollars compared to what the NEA receives in comparison, and people still want to pick on the little guy?

Here's something interesting that I read in the Scientific American link from above:


Oh, really?

Looks like according to the government, not all the sciences are considered equal, either. If we continue down this road, after the artists are all gone, we'll also begin to find no interest in education, in the humanities, in mathematics and the earth sciences, and we'll convince ourselves that the only worthy investments are drilling for fossil fuels and manufacturing really big weapons.

For anyone who insists I'm using the slippery slope fallacy, tell me....is this not already happening?

Well, the Federal government sure does appear to have a fetish for military spending. What can I say... boys and their toys and all that jazz.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The killing sciences always do pretty well.

e.g. Monsanto

Everyone raise your hand in support of government funding Monsanto science! Who's with me? :bounce

 

[painted wolf]

Caution...derision ahead!

Fear artists? Pullleeeeeezzzzz!
I'm sure Obama cowers in his loafers at the prospect of pointed barbs launched at him by the likes of:
- Andres Sarrano (of P**s Christ fame)
- Yoko Ono
- Philip Glass

I can just see a Philip Glass screed against Obama.....
"You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink. You stink."

It's not the words they fear... it's the images.

You may be familiar with some of these famous works that were key in spurring some famous movements like the American and French Revolutions.

Let's also not forget the long history of political cartoons (and government controlled art aka...propaganda) and their influence on popular thinking.

Art is powerful.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not the words they fear... it's the images.

You may be familiar with some of these famous works that were key in spurring some famous movements like the American and French Revolutions.
Art is powerful.

I agree....except when the artist is funded by the very government which needs an artistic spanking.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I personally consider some video games to be a form of art. As a long-time gamer, I might be biased, but something like this...

And this:

... just fascinate me. Imagining and animating a fictional underwater utopia (which later becomes a dystopia) with this much detail is simply astounding, in my opinion.

(Okay, enough letting out of the video game nerd in me now... )

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree....except when the artist is funded by the very government which needs an artistic spanking.

The difference is that the purpose of organizations like the NEA isn't to be utlizied by the government, but to operate as it's own entity and make the decisions on what exactly it is funding.

It's funny when one side is saying that the NEA is too anti-American, that creates "art" (quotation marks I've seen used for purposes of sarcasm) which amounts to trash and disrespects our governing bodies, and another side is saying that it's too propagandist FOR the government. There's the ornery side of me that playfully muses when one single, tiny, and seemingly insignificant organization manages to **** off both political sides of the spectrum, it must be doing something right.