Government-funded Arts

Except the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of jobs, the economic activity, and the resources available to the public at large.

I don't think arguing for subsidized jobs works well. I think the better idea is to be discussing the value of art itself.

Afterall if it pays for thousands of jobs, it could have paid for thousands of nurses instead. I think it better to say that art itself has value and it is hard to calculate but it is also hard to discount. Life isn't really worth living if it weren't for art.

For instance, whlie deboss smugly smiles as he states all art can be destroyed... he's on a site called tvtropes.

Any dime spent on any government activity could be spent on something else with just as much merit.

Not like art is as significant as say oil subsidies.

Indeed, which is why I think that when discussing government-funded art, one should make the case that the amount of art provided by the dollars spent is better than putting those dollars as extra spending in any other government programme.

When I get home from work, what do I want to do? Play some video games, watch some tv, read some stuff online, read a book and so on. What is all that? It is art. If the amount of art I get is significantly impacted by removing government funding, that negatively impacts my quality of life. So with such a real difference to me, yet such a negligible difference to my taxes, I would go with gov-funded art.

"I think it better to say that art itself has value and it is hard to calculate but it is also hard to discount." - breadloaf

The question is, why does it have to be government-funded art in particular?

Not everybody believes the gov't may only do what is absolutely and utterly necessary.

@Neo: because much like science or any other "intellectual" pursuit, government funding is the only reason anything gets done other than the stuff made to cater to the profit margins.

edited 30th Jun '11 4:43:09 PM by Midgetsnowman

Well not just that, as I had stated previously, only an extremely narrow margin of our art is 100% reliance on government grants but 100% of art has some form of government break given to it. So you ask me "Why only government-funded art?", I ask you back, "What art isn't government funded?". Every single science fiction show I watch receives tax breaks from the British Columbian government and it receives grants from the Canadian federal government or the British federal government (I mean like Battlestar Galactica, Fringe, Sanctuary, Doctor Who.. etc). Would I want to lose those shows or lose the potential of getting more of such shows? I'd say no.

So largely I am okay with the government putting a small amount of tax dollars out there for this purpose.

Not everyone believes evolution should be taught in schools. I view both opinions the same way.

Thread Hop: Goverment will only support the kind of art that is respected by art communities and we all know that the art communities always appreciate things with different style, concept or message than what they are used to.

edited 1st Jul '11 3:23:07 AM by nzm1536

You possess a remarkable lack of discernment then. I suggest you learn to perceive people better.

Actually...no, not here. There's actually guidelines against such discrimination. It's less of a problem than for private donors, who will be less likely to take risks, and go with whatever is easy instead.

Yes, that is what you do. Thank you for repeating yourself, just in case if it was unclear to anybody that you are lumping groups together for no real reason, but simply to make it easier to dismiss them.

edited 1st Jul '11 9:58:53 AM by blueharp

I view both opinions as something to dismiss until they can come up with really good evidence. I have yet to see any.