Government funding of the arts: For or against?

[Leslie]

The PBS post kinda begat this thread.  Lazs and MT were about to have a discussion, so here is a thread for that if you like.

I do not favor govt. funding of individual artists mainly because of the graft and corruption involved.  There have been cases of individual artists receiving the same grants over and over again, and it turned out the artists were relatives of organized crime figures...so this was clearly mob influence and crony ism.  It is surprising to most people that art is one of the Mob's most lucrative legal involvements (as per these govt. grants.)  On the unlawful side, copies of famous stolen paintings are made and sold to several collectors world wide before the original painting is returned to a museum.  What buyer of one of these paintings would call the police?  Fyi, even the fakes are quite valuable.  Of course those involved in such activities are criminals of the mastermind category, and evidently it is enough of a problem that the New York Police Dept. created a special inspector to investigate art crimes.

But I diverge.  Other than not being able to trust the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) with doling out grant money, the question arises "Can the arts survive without some sort of public funding?"  It is a fact more money is spent by the public on art events than sport events.  Why is there no govt. funding of football if this is the case?  Should there be a National Endowment of Sports in this case?

Who decides what art receives funding?  Seems like grants are awarded to applicants who use the correct academic lingo and catch phrases.  More than not, the artwork does not merit a grant, and imho you can pretty much forget it if your work is traditional or conservative.   It seems cutting edge nowadays means primitive or what I call "weird."  Problem with that is it's not cutting edge or innovative, though some of the "weird" art is very interesting and competently done.  And I believe modern and abstract art has more than an even chance of selling, provided it shows craftsmanship.  Probably the greatest factor in whether an art piece sells or not is how clean it is and how it's displayed.  This is entirely up to the artist and something he has complete control over.

About literature, again why govt. funding?  As an example which comes to mind I'll use author Alex Haley who wrote "Roots."  Haley was living on something like $20.00 a week in some run down garret while he was writing his book.  He ate sardines and crackers during this time.  A friend saw his plight and offered him a job that paid $6000 to help him out.  Haley turned down the offer because it would interfere with his writing.  Had he taken the job he wouldn't have written his book.  Should not an artist's/author's success be based on merit?  Clearly Haley's work was successful without public funding.

I am not totally against govt. funding when it comes to team efforts such as the symphony orchestra.  This is something which benefits a community and stimulates other arts.  I am very much opposed to funding other than private sector funding for individual art efforts, which can and do succeed on their own merits.   Some will say meritorious artists may go unrecognized without govt. support.  I say it goes with the territory that thousands of meritorious artists don't receive recognition after devoting a lifetime to their art.  Who chooses those that do succeed?  The best steps our government has taken to stimulate creativity is copyright law which protects intellectual property.  The creation of the Library of Congress is money well spent.  When tax money was used to promote art with merit, I'm not against that.  The downfall of the NEA can be measured when art was funded for social purposes or agendas, thus basing funding of the arts on a common denominator, which, while not the lowest common denominator, has never been the purpose of art.  As Clint Eastwood stated in his role as art teacher in the movie "The Eiger Sanction" - Art is not and has never been for the people, it is for those who can appreciate it.




Les

[Mr No Name]

against

[texasmom]

against

[Yeager]

For, as long as the people who are being taxed have a say in the distrubution and targeting of those funds.

[DieAz]

against

[midnight Target]

For.. duh.

Not only should a government fund the arts, it should fund them with little or no inteference. When someone in government starts deciding what is "art" we are on the road to Hitler on a white stallion....

[texasmom]

Originally posted by midnight Target
For.. duh.

Not only should a government fund the arts, it should fund them with little or no inteference. When someone in government starts deciding what is "art" we are on the road to Hitler on a white stallion....

LOL ~ how is it that the government should foot the bill, but not have any say-so here?

That's laughable.

[majic]

Originally posted by midnight Target
For.. duh.

Not only should a government fund the arts, it should fund them with little or no inteference. When someone in government starts deciding what is "art" we are on the road to Hitler on a white stallion....

That's the difficulty then isn't it?  You don't have infinite fund.  Some people will have to be told no.  Who?  How do you decide?

[tedrbr]

For funding of the arts with as little restriction as is practical.

The dollar amounts to the arts are a very small percentage compared to the overall budget, and a level playing field to support artists of all types in all venues is one of the small positive things a government can accomplish.

Gaft and corruption?  Compared to most government corruption, this is weak.  Want to go after corruption: target the agricultural and shipping industries and their subsidies.  You'll save more money there than the arts.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

AGAINST. The government should NOT be a patron of the arts. The government shouldn't be a charity fund either. There's a lot of things we need before we fund "art". Regardless of who likes it.

[lasersailor184]

Against, the government should not fund anything.

[AKIron]

[JB88]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There's a lot of things we need before we fund "art". Regardless of who likes it.

things we need more of ...like corporate welfare or the subsidization of the military industrial complex?

fact is, public funding for the arts barely even registers on the budget and is so minuscule that it should be embarrassing for anyone to bother picking on such small kid in the class.

i am for the funding of some public arts projects, symphonies, museums and festivals and the like, but i am mostly against individual grants.  those types of handouts are better left to the corporations who get such great corporate welfare from the government that they can afford it.  besides, it makes them look so kitten cute when they put on a play.

the 1% programs that some cities have put in place have been great for revitalizing tired communities and enticing new blood.  they get voted in by the communities and have had some great results.

all in all though, the arts have done much better than people tend to think when they step out of "arts and crafts" and start to factor in spielberg.  when you look at art that way you see that it art brings in billions.

what doesnt bring in billions are the things that we should preserve.  thats what public arts funding is meant to do.  to bring what has already been deemed good or valuable art to the people.  its not a matter of judgement or taste...its the things that we take for granted.

the classical stuff...it gets subsidized...otherwise it couldnt survive in mcdonaldland.

sesame street.  good stuff, but you must a commie for letting your kids watch it?

rally against arts funding?  

how 1980s.

like i said...it's such a small blip that only people who think art is "studmuffingy" really care much about it anyway.

its a non issue.  

take it away.  dont care.  im an artist and ive never used it.  never will.

i prefer the spielberg method to the lockheed way of getting money from the people anyday.

[Toad]

Negative.

For those of you with an open mind:

Not Yours To Give -  Col. David Crockett - US Representative from Tennessee

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

Those of you interested enough to read Mr. Crockett's explanation are cordially invited to click on the link.

[midnight Target]

Support for the arts is not charity, no matter what link you might dig up Toad.