Discussions
Should governments fund or subsidize art?
Posted by gingerbeer25 • 8/09/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: art, censorship, funding
The Tories have just ended funding to an art program citing that it did not reflect "Canadian values". Does government have an obligation to fund art?
www.womanist-musings.com/2008/08/censorship-tories-need-to-go.html
User Comments
-
Not at present. It's not that I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavor, but as I mentioned in the thread about clean needles a few days ago, there are much more pressing issues. If we start from the premise that government has the obligation to provide things that are necessary and beneficial to its citizens (a premise that would have to be accepted to determine that government had an "obligation" to fun art), then it has no business throwing money around on things like art until everyone has reasonable access to the basic necessities of life.-
Are you talking about the WPA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
-
-
The US government did fund the arts in the US post WWII, but many of those programs have since died out. (And for the life of me, I cannot remember the names of the programs. My art history teacher would have backhanded me into next week's assignment if she heard me say that
)
Artists like Pollock, John's, and that ilk were part of the government funded programs in the beginning.
Now, do I think the government needs to? Meh, no, not really. If someone in the government would like to, that would be nice, but it's not a necessity. -
I don't have a problem with our system of funding art. I do have a problem with the censorship part of it. "canadian values" ... whatever. It's the values of the 6 or so who sit on the committee.-
That's the problem with taking a grant though. No matter who the grantor is, the money comes with stipulations.
Always.
-
-
I believe that art is essential. To not fund it, is to limit social growth.
-
WHile I agree, (And I am a professional artist so I REALLY agree), there are more grave concerns to be funded at the moment.
Social growth is important, but without health care, food, shelter, employment, safety, social growth is a bit moot.
-
-
Obligation? No. Should it? Yes.
-
Mark, do you remember what those programs were called?
-
No, but at the federal level the money would be coming from the National Endowment for the Arts, which you'll see credited for some PBS programs. You can find out more through their site or by googling them.
-
Their are state and local programs too, of course.
-
Oh, I was talking about the art programs after WWII, two specific programs - Argh, that steel trap mind of mine!
-
-
Yeah but the funds that have been reduced are not being redirected towards other social programs...they are simply absorbed.
-
I don't think they were meant to be redirected, but rather budget cuts are budget cuts.
Our economy isn't at it's greatest...some things will have to go....
-
-
It is a problem if the funds aren't being redirected that if part of the cut depends on the idea that "more important" things need to be funded. Also once cut in times of prosperity new programs are not started to replace the ones that were shut down in time of recession.
-
I wouldn't think of it as a cut based on the idea that there were more important things, but would rather wonder how on earth we ever got to the point of thinking that we should be handing out money to create murals and music when we can't seem to create housing or teach our population to read and write.
-
-
Yes, government can help promoting Art by giving some help, it is good. -
Madamex are teaches children essential skills.
-
Essential? I think I'd have to differ on that. It's useful, certainly, but if a child starves to death or dies of a treatable illness, I don't really give a damn whether or not he had the opportunity to be "edified" by some really great art before he died. I'll bet he doesn't either...or his parents...
Think about what you'd do with your own children. If you had to choose between feeding them or getting them flute lessons, which would it be? Would you have them live in a cardboard box so that you could afford to take them to Broadway shows? If not, why would you make those same choices for other children? -
Art is essential. It teaches students to make connections that math and reading and testing alone won't do. I hate it when schools target such programs first. What an unnecessary impoverishment.
-
@Mark: Art is essential. It teaches students to make connections that math and reading and testing alone won't do. I hate it when schools target such programs first. What an unnecessary impoverishment.
I do agree that art should NOT be cut from the school curriculum. Teaching children about art is more than merely splashing paints on a canvas or cutting out paper shapes; art does help to expand a child's imagination.
When I was saying no to my tax dollars being used for art projects, I was only considering projects outside of school.
-
-
Here we go with the extreme choices. No one is starving because governments are funding art. The money spent on these programs is far less than what is spent on corporate subsidies or "defense spending". Funding are should be part of all education. It teaches children to express themselves and think, something that western society could no a lot more of.
-
That's entirely beside the point, Ginger. The starving is going on. Someone is standing there with money in hand (whether it be a governmental body or a person making a $100 donation to charity) and deciding whether it's more important to put that money toward keeping someone alive or putting a sculpture in the park. Seems to me the answer is obvious. But it IS an extreme choice, because every decision to spend money on something less essential is a decision NOT to spend that money keeping someone alive.
-
-
Absolutely not.
When governments fund something, it means that if you don't pay, they come to your house to throw you in jail. Governments have no business whatsoever using taxes for the purpose of funding taste. -
Well it seems to be that corporate welfare is far less than important than teaching children to think.
-
Agreed...what does that have to do with the point you were arguing? Teaching children to think isn't possible if we can't keep them alive. And, of course, "teaching children to think" begins with little things like READING...so maybe when we've come somewhere near achieving literacy across the board we can start worrying about adding watercolor to the mix.
-
so maybe when we've come somewhere near achieving literacy across the board we can start worrying about adding watercolor to the mix.
Oh, good answer, good answer. **clapping hands and jumping up and down** -
I really think you're presenting false dichotomies here, Tiffany. Children can get educations and eat too. We've got enough money for that. And my sense is that art has important value for other subjects where progress is easier to measure: math and science. I've never read up on this, but it's what a teacher in my family with decades of experience has explained to me in no small amount of detail. Wish I had saved some references.
Edited to add: for example in pre-school, pre-K, and Kindergarten: just how much math and reading are they supposed to do? And how many hours are there in a day in school? What about fostering all areas of the brain so that they can develop fully? And what about creating positive learning environments? Just things that occur to me having watched my own child grow up. -
Theoretically yes, that's possible, Mark. But the bottom line is that right now there are children starving and children dying of curable diseases and children not learning to read...and so long as those problems exist, we shouldn't even be thinking about spending money on "public benefits" that don't address those critical areas. I don't dispute the value of the arts in education--but I also don't put that value on a par with keeping a child alive into adulthood or preserving his health to a degree that allows him to live and work normally as an adult or even making sure that he has the necessary basic reading and mathematical skills to function in society...and that ISN'T HAPPENING.
I think you're likely right that we could have it all, but we don't. My daughter plays three musical instruments and we often go to the theater--but I didn't buy her a flute without having healthy food in the refrigerator and a roof over her head, and I'd like to extend that same level of care to everyone's children.
-
-
My tax dollars used to support art projects? No.
-
The US government does help the arts, though the funding is meager in relation to other priorities and also in relation to what most major industrialized nations spend. Or haven't you heard of the National Endowment for the Arts. Or the various museums in Washington, DC, which millions of citizens visit and profit from each year. Or PBS? There was a time, ca. 1994, when Republicans talked of killing it. Instead they just reduced the funding drastically. Course there was also a time when Republicans talked of killing the Dept of Education.
-
@markstoneman ..Seriously how did the word government automatically get associated with the American Government? There is a world outside the US you know. The post I wrote is about a Canadian program that is being cut. so save the snark.
-
Funding art is all good, however, since art is in the eye of the beholder - some art that is controversial may not should be paid for with tax dollars. Maybe funding art training and the like is the best bet. -
They have no obligation to do so, but it would be nice. -
yeah but who decides what is controversial..Art is meant to push the envelope.
-
This is one area where the Soviet Union kicked our butts. While capitalistic values pushed most art to the sidelines, giving us a musical culture consisting of hip hop, rage, and whore, the Russian culture still includes classical and jazz. Anyone see the move The Terminal?
A successful society depends on a balance of supply and demand and funding of traditional culture.-
How successful was the USSR?
-
-
I think part of the problem is that people are so commodity driven that they don't recognize the importance of art. Unless it is something shiny that they can sell they figure what is the point.
-
Whoever funds it gets to choose. That is just the way it is.
To make this short I won't post links, but it takes very little research to see that “the Arts” -the teaching of and the generic term - applied to certain cultural aspect of any given area do two things.
Strong evidence suggest the arts increase literacy, and improve learning, and they provide economic rewards for areas heavy in art culture - whether it be art music, museums, and so on bring in a lot of things, tourism, educated spenders, and so on.
There are state wide and national studies on this - even pushing a culture of art in rural communities previous void of theater, visual art and music has brought gains to those communities and bring social and educational opportunities by default, often making the community a more cohesive place.
I understand why people look at the world and think we can do better, we shouldn't be funding art we need to feed the people.
I believe when we are poor, uneducated and hungry, people assume we only need (deserve) essentials like clothing, food, shelter, and an education, while those who are wealthy get the luxury and the benefits of the arts.
I believe art, in whatever form, is essential and should not be excluded in the face of poverty. It is to the great detriment of the “have nots” to not fund art. Just look on the faces of children at refugee camps when they are presented with music, visual arts and dance, and allowed to participate. It allows the mind to go places, to make connections — even in the face of the dire circumstances of those experiencing it.
Art is essential and should be funded as much as possible. -
It's simple. Do you want art to be driven by the interests of short term gains by the private sector or do you see the value in the long term. Trickle up effect to big culture.
www.larscuzner.com/ -
I blog about the nonmusical outcomes of classical music. The research which I present on my site is compelling enough for anyone, I think, but at my current posting rate of twice per week, I have enough peer-reviewed journal abstracts to last me through 2010 or so. There are so many ways that this helps people that you can't even imagine!
www.wikyblog.com/CynthiaWunsch -
i don't see much value in the government subsidizing artists.
let 'em get jobs and see how much art they want to produce after a hard day's work.-
I can see why you would get miffed thinking it is all just about funding an artist, But it goes deeper. They have an obligation to help foster anything that will bring in money, jobs, and promote quality of life and one way is with a creative economy. To do that requires a commitment and funding but until people stop thinking in the box and thinking it means just funding one or two weird art projects, then a creative economy isn't going to happen. Places that have done that have seen revitalized neighbourhoods, increased jobs, increased tourism, increased quality of life.
Here is one link that provides discussion/research on creative economies.
www.nasaa-arts.org/artworks/creativeeconomy_impact.html
Revival of downtown Asheville NC
richmondva.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/downtown-revival-a-lesson-from-ashevill...
"Mass. sees arts as vital to economy"
www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/03/mass_sees_arts_as_vital_to_econ...
-
-
Government should try to make their buildings and venues pleasant to interact with and be in. There should be murals in court houses, statuary in front of government buildings and similar things. Public art has its palce. Plain block house government buildings are grotesque.
Art in public places reduces oppressiveness plus it can be used to reinforce common values like intellectural freedom, the American dream, ending slavery, etc. -
Federal Government?? No. I think Federal Government should stay out of people's lives and only worry about providing the essentials (food, shelter, infrastructure). I think state and local governments are not obligated to fund the arts, but it would probably be a good idea if they did. Every area has different needs and every area should be free to use their tax revenue how they best see fit.
I'm sorry but I'm only speaking of American Goverment. I'm really not sure of the structure of other Governments. -
I do not think that any government has an "obligation" per se to fund or subsidize art. But I do think that art is important to any thriving country and that if they wanted to create some kind of program that allows for something like a grant or scholarship to exist would be nice.-
What about creative economies? For example:
www.iberkshires.com/story/24067/Council-Grant-Support-Creative-Economy.html
I ask because people seem to be locked into the idea that supporting the arts is exclusive of larger considerations (specifically economic ones to the community). -
jafabrit- I read your the article at the link you gave me and I am still not quite sure what a "creative economy" is. Would you care to explain?
-
HEre is a fairly good explanation:
www.nasaa-arts.org/publications/creative_econ_brief.pdf
-
-
Here is the exhibit showcasing what came out of the New Deal for the Arts during the Great Depression.
www.archives.gov/exhibits/new_deal_for_the_arts/index.html -
No. Government should not fund art directly. It should fund museums, schools, libraries, etc. These institutions encourage/support art. -
No.-
Not even if it brought jobs, income, tourist dollars to your community?
-
If you have ever visited Phoenix, you'd understand - it's awful. In addition, they did not fund local artists, they funded artists outside the community and outside the country.
As an artist, I have submitted many proposals for community art projects, considered as a finalist only to loose to outside artists. -
Did those outside artists contribute to the local economy and culture? If not then I can see where you are coming from. From what I am seeing many towns and cities are restructuring to promote a creative economy, which means supporting the arts/artists within the community that serve that economic plan and local revitalization. Unless local governments do that, then at best it seems to be a haphazard approach and people will continue to consider the arts as a minor need and be unaware of the huge economic potential.
-
To the best of my knowledge - no they did not. I (and other local artists) have been around and around with the local arts council and city councils about this very subject for the past 10 years - they don't get it!
-
well sheesh, no wonder you said no then.
-
-
It's fine for government to subsidize art and artists if it can resist the seemingly irresistible compulsion to censor. -
Quote:
"According to Statistics Canada’s sustained and very serious efforts to generate concrete estimates, the collective economic contribution of the diversity of activities that we term culture contributed $46 billion (3.9 percent) to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007. Cultural industries employ an estimated 1.1 million people."
www.scena.org/lsm/sm14-2/sm14-2_culturalindustrial_en.html
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
