Government funding for "The Arts"

Former Member

Should national governments finance "The Arts"?

With all of the demands on the public purse generated by health service, education and defence etc, should the Govt really aslo fund the National Opera etc?

Does anyone know how other countries work?

I know that Ireland offers tax free status for "artists"

Former Member

The gov. has an obligation to protect the art, as without these we lose a lot culture, and put some arts out of reach of the general public (opera being a good example here).

Also arts are good for improving general quality of life and broadening horizons, and education.
The trouble is that if the arts need to be subsidised then they are probabily not being used, and if they're not being used I really cannot see the point in their existance.

Tax reductions (or exemption) sounds like a good idea, as then its not actually costing the government (the people) but still has incentive for people to take part / turn the art into a career.

The arts should not be financed by the gov., but more importantly the arts should not be allowed to die.

Former Member

Hmmm, a tough one. I think that the government should sustain the arts to a certain degree,, but that there is not enough money in education or health services and these should be the number one priority because they effect the greatest number of people.

Former Member

Education and health are priorities! Art is a nicety. First things first. By the way what do you consider art?

Former Member

Originally posted by Murph the Surf
Education and health are priorities! Art is a nicety. First things first. By the way what do you consider art?

If you believe the "elite" it is anything creative, so long as it isn't popularist. :rolleyes: Snobby bastards.

Personally "art" is a difficult thing to define. I see some sport as artistic (can anyone deny the beauty of Joe Montana's passing, or a well executed through pass), but music, sculpture, painting and dance are usually accepted as "art"

Former Member

MoK,

If everyone has access to health care and good education then the government should spend some money on art. But I tell you I ma a little suspicious at what passes for art these days.

Yes, Joe Montana truly was artistic. I prefer the work of Elway myself.

Former Member

Originally posted by Murph the Surf
Education and health are priorities! Art is a nicety. First things first. By the way what do you consider art?

I think art is like decoration. Its something that looks nice. The Mona Lisa is art, the three graces is art, half a cow pickled in formaldehyde is not art! I'll pay to see what I consider "good" art, I've even been to a few galleries in my time. However, I won't go to see shit stuck to a wall so why should I pay for it through taxes?

Former Member

I think the public library system in this country is a really good example of why the Government should fund the Arts.

When the library service started it opened doors to new worlds for iners, Factory wokers, Farmers and all sorts of other 'Lower classes' . It gave the the opportunity to educate themselves and to form their own opinions through study.

So YES! I think its really really important


PS - Im a Librarian ...does it show

Former Member

byny,

I am afraid the library is not an art IMHO. A library is a necessity!

Yes it does show but that is quite a good thing!:D

Murph

Former Member

I think there has to be a recognition between what the purpose of the art is to decide whether it should be funded or not.

At lot of government funding of arts is not to product art as an end product, rather the end product being aimed for is an improvement in the environment, or widening the opportunities available to people.

Funding of arts based community projects I certainly think holds great merit, as the art is just the vehicle for getting people to work together. For example, on a local level we've just run an arts workshop with young people, using the arts as an opportunity to explore views on the local area and bringing out thoughts on how local facilities could be improved through the arts. (report on arts workshops).

I think one of the problems with arts used to enhance an environment is because art is a very subjective thing, you can't easily put a value on how much it enhances an environment. Because whilst one person might feel that putting an artisitic sculpture in the local park really brightens their environment, another may percieve it as ugly and feel it damages their environment. So with arts it is very difficult to do any sort of cost-benefit analysis and say whether art is worth the money government has spent on it. The same may be true of subsidised performance art or arts of any sort.

Therefore, I don't think all government funding of arts is all good, or all is bad. It depends very much on the situation. I certainly think art can really enhance our environment both by being visually appealing and mentally stimulating, but that doesn't mean it should be provided at any cost to the government.