Should art get government subsidies ...

[Alceste]

Too involved to go into tonite.

That's the sort of thing I always say when I know I've talked myself into an unjustifiable corner and lost a debate. Then I conveniently "forget".

Is your question an attempt to feel like you're sophisticated relative to a
lowly groundskeeper just because you know the name of a famous cellist?
Geeze, the guy is on the radio here all the time.

OK, so you know Yo Yo Ma and Lady Ga Ga. Who would you rather listen to?

We've covered this ground before.
And I've explained that I find this abusive.

I don't think you've covered it with me. You don't consider yourself a right-winger, then? I'm not trying to be abusive. The last thing I remember you writing on the subject is that as far as the US is concerned, libertarian literally means "right winger", at least economically speaking.

Anyway, my point is that even American libertarians like yourself can have good taste in art, but since nobody, regardless of their politics, is willing to pay for it directly, the continued existence of high quality art requires public funding.

 

[s2a]

... or should the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) be abolished?

I confess that I’ve always been of mixed emotions on this particular question.

On one hand, I’m unsure whether or not government is necessary to promote artistic expression, for it is likely to continue on with or without funding and endorsement. As long as the human condition seeks out art as definition or interpretation of self/ourselves…we can be confident that sculptors, painters, singers/songwriters, authors/editors, poets, dancers/choreographers, will continue on.

On the other hand, art often enough becomes politically charged, especially when confronting the ailings, inadequacies, injustices, or pointed failings of governmental actions/inaction. Fair to say that many authors, poets, and other artists of sound/sight/satire have endured imprisonment or worse at the hands of totalitarian regimes or dictatorships that deem any critiques as prosecutable crimes…unpatriotic, seditious, blasphemous, radical, extreme beyond palatable norms of society/

So, the question then is put:
Should a “free” society not only allow, but even go so far as to promote “the arts”?

I have but these observations to offer in answer:
1) Rare example is available to demonstrate that singular/unified thought promotes innovation or invention. All you get is a lot of bands doing “covers” of other’s works instead. Comforting, but really dull.
2) Inspiration never arises from imitation.
3) Crap is crap, and people know it when they see/hear it.
4) Without art, humans are no better than plankton. Really.
5) Any society than can afford to promote the arts (either financially or empathetically)…should, Period.
6) Art has never served to regress humanistic culture, intellect, understanding, curiosity, innovation, or inquiry.

As addendum, I’ll also offer this.

In the USA, many folks complain incessantly that their “hard earned tax dollars” go to pay for projects/causes/purposes that they don’t approve of, don’t use, or don’t like/want.

Well, in a word…tough.

Even if you never own/drive a car, roads and bridges support the vehicles that deliver what you purchase at the grocery store, Best Buy, or eBay.
Even if you never have a child, schools serve to educate the people that will one day wipe your drooling mouth at the rest home your kids put you in.
Everyone needs health care. Everyone. When health care costs rise, blame an obese person first… not some political ideology.

I do miss the days when the USA was a courageous and inviting inspiration to the world. Today, we’re just whining, incessantly.
Wahhh! I don’t want my tax dollars going to “X”, because I don’t like/approve of/use/benefit from that “X”…waaaahhh.

C’mon. Time to put on the big pants ya’ll, and quit trying to be the “independent” rogue of your your little sandbox/playground. It’s tiresome, ignorant, and just plain stupid. We are all the inheritors of someone else’s efforts before us, for good or ill.

Let’s not get so petty and near-sighted to believe that “the arts” are to blame, or the answer. But if we are left to wade amongst the excrement left to us, let us at least sniff the occasional rose along the way “)

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the sort of thing I always say when I know I've talked myself into an unjustifiable corner and lost a debate. Then I conveniently "forget".

I was being diplomatic about how I don't want to repeat things you missed.
I prefer to avoid personal criticism.

OK, so you know Yo Yo Ma and Lady Ga Ga. Who would you rather listen to?

Neither.

I don't think you've covered it with me. You don't consider yourself a right-winger, then? I'm not trying to be abusive. The last thing I remember you writing on the subject is that as far as the US is concerned, libertarian literally means "right winger", at least economically speaking.

We've covered it. Perhaps I remember more vividly than do you, since the differences between libertarians &
the Republicans, Democrats, statists, authoritarians, socialists, the left & the right matter more to me.
Here's a snappy little diagram to illustrate that libertarians are liberal on both economic & social issues.

It's from The World's Smallest Political Quiz.

Anyway, my point is that even American libertarians like yourself can have good taste in art, but since nobody, regardless of their politics, is willing to pay for it directly, the continued existence of high quality art requires public funding.

I pay for it directly.
Great art is created without gov't subsidy.
I simply oppose gov't subsidizing people who want to "express themselves", but have someone else foot the bill involuntarily (the taxpayer).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's it. I blame the system for me being a whore and sleeping with filthy rich men to get funded for my performances.

It's not my fault. It's not my fault. It's not my fault.....*quietly rocks back and forth whispering*

 

[Revoltingest]

That's it. I blame the system for me being a whore and sleeping with filthy rich men to get funded for my performances.
It's not my fault. It's not my fault. It's not my fault.....*quietly rocks back and forth whispering*

Why on Earth would "blame" be needed for your being an exemplary human being?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why on Earth would "blame" be needed for your being an exemplary human being?

I was being facetious.

But thanks for the compliment. I knew you had it in you. :foryou:

 

[Revoltingest]

I was being facetious.

I knew dat.
But people like you are the reason I'm willing to ditch gov't subsidy.
(I mean that in a good way.)
Now, before you start thinking I'm getting all soft & reasonable....yer a doo doo head!

 

[otokage007]

Yes, I think government should subsidize art the same way it subsidizes sports, for example. But everything must remain on its position, I mean, both sports and arts are important, but I don't think they should be put at the same level as technology or science, because they aren't as benefical for humankind.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ditch the pro sports subsidies too.

 

[BSM1]

Am I doomed to fail at everything?

No. Wait a minute, would that be considered a failure?

 

[painted wolf]

When it comes to fail... he wins. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[s2a]

That's it. I blame the system for me being a whore and sleeping with filthy rich men to get funded for my performances.

It's not my fault. It's not my fault. It's not my fault.....*quietly rocks back and forth whispering*

Sure...sure..

there there now... we know...

"I was young. I needed the work"

 

[Yerda]

I think public funding for the arts is a good thing. Good for the arts. Good for the public.