Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Should governments fund the arts?

donkeydo
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:09:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you believe the arts should fall under the realm of government funding?
"Donkey see donkey do."
- Unknown
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 6:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

Even though I hope (in an ideal world) to make a living from the arts, they are something the government has no place funding, regulating, or really having any place in in any way, shape, or form.
But if the chance remains
to see those better days,
I'd cut the cannons down.

- Vampire Weekend "Giving Up the Gun"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:40:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

Things like PBS could be funded by charities, donations, and most likely by the people who will use these goods.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 8:55:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 1:28:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. I don't want a part of civil society to be appropriated by the state, which is precisely what happens when you choose politics as the mechanism by which you determine how--and under what conditions--to distribute that funding. One of the most valuable social functions of art--at least, as far as I'm concerned--is its capacity to drive cultural change (where "cultural" entails "social", "philosophical", etc.), the potential for which is largely extinguished when you rob art of its counter-cultural power by demanding that its lifeblood be placed at the mercy of political calculations. State capture of art tends to transform it, I think, into this perverse thing whose sole purpose is consumption by passive spectators.

It's a lot like what's happened in a lot of the modern authoritarian states in the Middle East--in exchange for being authoritarian, many of these governments have cut a deal with their citizens--expansive social programs, wide subsidy nets to keep prices low, etc. And, rather than trying to ban or suppress civil society, the states usually just appropriate it themselves--by opening and funding numerous social clubs/intellectual organizations/etc.--to rob it of its subversive potential by pulling the financial strings and setting the parameters for discourse (rather than letting groups external to the political infrastructure decide the terms for themselves).

I'd sooner accept the art world being ransacked and burned than captured and enslaved.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 3:43:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fund dem paintings.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Smithereens
Posts: 7,019
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2012 2:03:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017
daerice
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 10:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes I do. What makes a civilization great? What can we glean from triumphs of the past? Certainly architecture, art, writing, philosophy and invention are what remains for history to judge - and the quality of the legacy that we leave behind will speak loudest about what we valued. If we refuse to invest in ourselves as a culture then we will be temporary, fragmented, cheap and wasteful. If we can't define our beauty and folly, if we can't offer up what is most sublime about our way of loving and living, then our mark upon the world will be a blemish, not a monument.

I lived for awhile in Eastern Europe, in Slovenia, and there the government chooses a few people a year to become National Artists, and they are employed for life at a medium wage to produce and develop their talents for the enrichment of Slovenian culture.

Of course I'm not saying the U.S. should follow the Slovenian model, only that we might care a little bit more about who we are as a people, and what we afford ourselves regarding the manifestations and monuments of culture.
imabench
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:11:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 2:24:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is what happens when we don't fund the arts.



Im now completely in favor of the government funding the arts
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 8:14:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 6:57:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
No.

Even though I hope (in an ideal world) to make a living from the arts, they are something the government has no place funding, regulating, or really having any place in in any way, shape, or form.

Concur 100% It is not the govts roll to support your hobbies. Outside of teaching you to read write and do math to a semi-proficient level in order to function in society. That is the only thing govt should fund educationally. I left history out on purpose. That just gets rewritten periodically and no one learns anything from it anyway.
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 8:16:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 2:24:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is what happens when we don't fund the arts.



No, this "IS" what happens when the arts are funded.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:02:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2013 8:16:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/8/2012 2:24:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is what happens when we don't fund the arts.


No, this "IS" what happens when the arts are funded.

No, this is what happens when the arts are funded.

'

Philadelphia, PA, will become a dynamic arts destination

The low housing prices, affordable lifestyle, and cool arts scene are attracting young people to Philadelphia.

These people are getting involved in the city through organizations like Young Involved Philadelphia and bringing a new sense of dynamism to the city, with new restaurants, shops, galleries, and a cool music and arts scene.

The City of Brotherly Love has some of the best public art in the country. It's famous for its murals, which adorn buildings all around the city. The City of Philadelphia Mural Arts Program coordinates these murals, connecting artists to the community.

Philadelphia was also ranked one of the 10 Cities with the Fastest Growing Wages in America.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Philadelphia is not unique in this regard, either.

http://nyphil.org...

See video...ALSO what happens when arts are funded publicly.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:45:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:02:45 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/2/2013 8:16:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/8/2012 2:24:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is what happens when we don't fund the arts.


No, this "IS" what happens when the arts are funded.

No, this is what happens when the arts are funded.

'

Philadelphia, PA, will become a dynamic arts destination

The low housing prices, affordable lifestyle, and cool arts scene are attracting young people to Philadelphia.

These people are getting involved in the city through organizations like Young Involved Philadelphia and bringing a new sense of dynamism to the city, with new restaurants, shops, galleries, and a cool music and arts scene.

The City of Brotherly Love has some of the best public art in the country. It's famous for its murals, which adorn buildings all around the city. The City of Philadelphia Mural Arts Program coordinates these murals, connecting artists to the community.

Philadelphia was also ranked one of the 10 Cities with the Fastest Growing Wages in America.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Philadelphia is not unique in this regard, either.

http://nyphil.org...

See video...ALSO what happens when arts are funded publicly.



Yes, it's all so special. I hate murals on buildings, they are almost always poorly done or are in poor taste or have some political agenda. If people want to see symphony's and people sing they can pay for it on their dime. It is not the role of govt in any way shape or form. It's the wishes of the spoiled.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:35:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:45:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, it's all so special. I hate murals on buildings, they are almost always poorly done or are in poor taste or have some political agenda. If people want to see symphony's and people sing they can pay for it on their dime. It is not the role of govt in any way shape or form. It's the wishes of the spoiled.

Or the wishes of the people who enjoy growth in their city as well as a cultural identity.

The New York Philharmonic (WORLD FAMOUS NEW YORK PHILHARMONIC) could not sustain itself without public funding.

Given that Milli Vanilli was plenty able to sustain itself for a good 5 years before the hoax was up (or however long it was), perhaps popular art is not exactly a thing to be exulted.

You think all hip hop is garbage as well, but that's because you, like most other Americans, aren't intellectually curious enough to find out what artists in a given genre are absolutely amazing because to you, 'Glee' is the height of 'art'.

Picasso was rare in that he was able to see the fruits of his artistic labors before his death, but most painters can't because the world is, all of a sudden with the advent and rise of television, lacking in connoisseurs and patrons, and art needs patrons to survive.

I feel immensely sorry for you that you can't see the beauty in art, nor its value (both intrinsic and otherwise). How devoid of beauty and romance your life must be.

You needn't sentence the rest of the population to your ugly outlook on the world.

I don't think the collegiate football coaches in my state are worth $6 million/year, combined, but I realize that people enjoy collegiate football, so I don't b!tch about it, and these sporting events bring something of a boost to the economy (sort of...if they didn't exist, people would simply spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere).

Do you believe the country is too far in debt? Well, the ability to create instead of consume, when encouraged in our youth, is a way to combat this trend and move away from a consumer based debt economy.

If you can't see the beauty in art, at least embrace its pragmatism.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 6:14:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:45:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:02:45 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/2/2013 8:16:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/8/2012 2:24:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is what happens when we don't fund the arts.


No, this "IS" what happens when the arts are funded.

No, this is what happens when the arts are funded.

'

Philadelphia, PA, will become a dynamic arts destination

The low housing prices, affordable lifestyle, and cool arts scene are attracting young people to Philadelphia.

These people are getting involved in the city through organizations like Young Involved Philadelphia and bringing a new sense of dynamism to the city, with new restaurants, shops, galleries, and a cool music and arts scene.

The City of Brotherly Love has some of the best public art in the country. It's famous for its murals, which adorn buildings all around the city. The City of Philadelphia Mural Arts Program coordinates these murals, connecting artists to the community.

Philadelphia was also ranked one of the 10 Cities with the Fastest Growing Wages in America.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Philadelphia is not unique in this regard, either.

http://nyphil.org...

See video...ALSO what happens when arts are funded publicly.



Yes, it's all so special. I hate murals on buildings, they are almost always poorly done or are in poor taste or have some political agenda. If people want to see symphony's and people sing they can pay for it on their dime. It is not the role of govt in any way shape or form. It's the wishes of the spoiled.

I live not far from Philly, and it's not just random people drawing on buildings. Our area is actually home to an American school of painting which specializes in landscapes, and some of the murals are beautiful to the point of being surreal. To walk around the corner and see something like that, instead of graffiti or a soot-streaked brick wall, is actually pretty amazing. Philadelphia has plenty of bad points, but the murals aren't one of them.

http://trailhonky.com...

http://designphiladelphia.files.wordpress.com...

http://www.danfulwiler.com...
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:03:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Funding the art doesn't mean monopolising the art is it not? I don't really see any reason why the government should not have fund it (except that it may be a waste of investment, but then again for national prestige it might worth). Even if the government is supporting the Philadelphia Philharmonic, doesn't mean that someone else could sing hip hop or jazz is it?

And remember many of the artistic wonder that withstand the test of time is of government funding (Versailles, Taj Mahal, Pyramid, you named it). I think great art need investment and I see no harm if the government is to do it and expect something in return.
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 8:00:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:35:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:45:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, it's all so special. I hate murals on buildings, they are almost always poorly done or are in poor taste or have some political agenda. If people want to see symphony's and people sing they can pay for it on their dime. It is not the role of govt in any way shape or form. It's the wishes of the spoiled.

Or the wishes of the people who enjoy growth in their city as well as a cultural identity.

The New York Philharmonic (WORLD FAMOUS NEW YORK PHILHARMONIC) could not sustain itself without public funding.

Given that Milli Vanilli was plenty able to sustain itself for a good 5 years before the hoax was up (or however long it was), perhaps popular art is not exactly a thing to be exulted.

You think all hip hop is garbage as well, but that's because you, like most other Americans, aren't intellectually curious enough to find out what artists in a given genre are absolutely amazing because to you, 'Glee' is the height of 'art'.

Picasso was rare in that he was able to see the fruits of his artistic labors before his death, but most painters can't because the world is, all of a sudden with the advent and rise of television, lacking in connoisseurs and patrons, and art needs patrons to survive.

I feel immensely sorry for you that you can't see the beauty in art, nor its value (both intrinsic and otherwise). How devoid of beauty and romance your life must be.

You needn't sentence the rest of the population to your ugly outlook on the world.

I don't think the collegiate football coaches in my state are worth $6 million/year, combined, but I realize that people enjoy collegiate football, so I don't b!tch about it, and these sporting events bring something of a boost to the economy (sort of...if they didn't exist, people would simply spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere).

Do you believe the country is too far in debt? Well, the ability to create instead of consume, when encouraged in our youth, is a way to combat this trend and move away from a consumer based debt economy.

If you can't see the beauty in art, at least embrace its pragmatism.

Ironically I am an artist. Go figure. And don't feel sorry for me, I create art. Some of the most awesome functional works of stone art you will see. The philharmonic can't support itself because they don't charge enough and it knows it will be subsidised, otherwise it would change the way it does things. If they are worth watching, people will pay. It's not my problem if you can't afford the tickets. People pay way more to see far worse.
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 8:02:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I bet the people who paid to see that guy bang that rod on the poll paid more to watch that then the price of admission to the Philharmonic
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 9:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2013 8:00:58 PM, sadolite wrote:

Ironically I am an artist. Go figure. And don't feel sorry for me, I create art. Some of the most awesome functional works of stone art you will see. The philharmonic can't support itself because they don't charge enough and it knows it will be subsidised, otherwise it would change the way it does things. If they are worth watching, people will pay. It's not my problem if you can't afford the tickets. People pay way more to see far worse.

You're a Mason? that's cool.

see bolded section. you made my point for me. thank you. makes the whole deal a lot easier.

(the philharmonic charges as much as it can. Paying that many professional musicians, even the meager rate they do, is expensive. And, just like all other people who sell recorded music, the internet is taking its toll on orchestras, so that supplemental income is dwindling. But, you cut stone...are you cool with the many monuments in our nation's capital and around the country? Is it not worth the small amount of money to build and preserve these things for posterity? How is an orchestra any different, just because their art comes in a different medium?)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:26:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2013 9:46:06 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/8/2013 8:00:58 PM, sadolite wrote:

Ironically I am an artist. Go figure. And don't feel sorry for me, I create art. Some of the most awesome functional works of stone art you will see. The philharmonic can't support itself because they don't charge enough and it knows it will be subsidised, otherwise it would change the way it does things. If they are worth watching, people will pay. It's not my problem if you can't afford the tickets. People pay way more to see far worse.

You're a Mason? that's cool.

see bolded section. you made my point for me. thank you. makes the whole deal a lot easier.

(the philharmonic charges as much as it can. Paying that many professional musicians, even the meager rate they do, is expensive. And, just like all other people who sell recorded music, the internet is taking its toll on orchestras, so that supplemental income is dwindling. But, you cut stone...are you cool with the many monuments in our nation's capital and around the country? Is it not worth the small amount of money to build and preserve these things for posterity? How is an orchestra any different, just because their art comes in a different medium?)

Interesting, I am always being lectured on how times change and I am supposed to accept it regardless of weather or not I think it is good or bad for society. Times have changed, if the philharmonic cant survive to friken bad. Accept it good or bad, times are changing. The govt has squandered and indebted this nation. The philharmonic is not a necessity for life and not a legitimate function of govt. It's shiny and all but isn't neccesary. If it brought all the private sector money you say it does it would be funded by the private sector.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:32:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:26:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/8/2013 9:46:06 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/8/2013 8:00:58 PM, sadolite wrote:

Ironically I am an artist. Go figure. And don't feel sorry for me, I create art. Some of the most awesome functional works of stone art you will see. The philharmonic can't support itself because they don't charge enough and it knows it will be subsidised, otherwise it would change the way it does things. If they are worth watching, people will pay. It's not my problem if you can't afford the tickets. People pay way more to see far worse.

You're a Mason? that's cool.

see bolded section. you made my point for me. thank you. makes the whole deal a lot easier.

(the philharmonic charges as much as it can. Paying that many professional musicians, even the meager rate they do, is expensive. And, just like all other people who sell recorded music, the internet is taking its toll on orchestras, so that supplemental income is dwindling. But, you cut stone...are you cool with the many monuments in our nation's capital and around the country? Is it not worth the small amount of money to build and preserve these things for posterity? How is an orchestra any different, just because their art comes in a different medium?)

Interesting, I am always being lectured on how times change and I am supposed to accept it regardless of weather or not I think it is good or bad for society. Times have changed, if the philharmonic cant survive to friken bad. Accept it good or bad, times are changing. The govt has squandered and indebted this nation. The philharmonic is not a necessity for life and not a legitimate function of govt. It's shiny and all but isn't neccesary. If it brought all the private sector money you say it does it would be funded by the private sector.

killing the philharmonic doesn't save enough to matter. it's like drowning your cat to save $.50 when you owe $1million.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 9,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:01:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2013 1:32:10 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:26:12 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/8/2013 9:46:06 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/8/2013 8:00:58 PM, sadolite wrote:

Ironically I am an artist. Go figure. And don't feel sorry for me, I create art. Some of the most awesome functional works of stone art you will see. The philharmonic can't support itself because they don't charge enough and it knows it will be subsidised, otherwise it would change the way it does things. If they are worth watching, people will pay. It's not my problem if you can't afford the tickets. People pay way more to see far worse.

You're a Mason? that's cool.

see bolded section. you made my point for me. thank you. makes the whole deal a lot easier.

(the philharmonic charges as much as it can. Paying that many professional musicians, even the meager rate they do, is expensive. And, just like all other people who sell recorded music, the internet is taking its toll on orchestras, so that supplemental income is dwindling. But, you cut stone...are you cool with the many monuments in our nation's capital and around the country? Is it not worth the small amount of money to build and preserve these things for posterity? How is an orchestra any different, just because their art comes in a different medium?)

Interesting, I am always being lectured on how times change and I am supposed to accept it regardless of weather or not I think it is good or bad for society. Times have changed, if the philharmonic cant survive to friken bad. Accept it good or bad, times are changing. The govt has squandered and indebted this nation. The philharmonic is not a necessity for life and not a legitimate function of govt. It's shiny and all but isn't neccesary. If it brought all the private sector money you say it does it would be funded by the private sector.

killing the philharmonic doesn't save enough to matter. it's like drowning your cat to save $.50 when you owe $1million.

That is the exact attitude that never gets anything cut. Oh, it's only a few dollars, it wont make a difference. That is exactly what every pig at the trough says. If it isn't a legitimate function of govt it needs to be cut, no matter how little is spent on it. Apparently none of the pigs at the trough understand what the term "Legitimate function of govt" means.
rruthbj
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 12:27:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, I believe the government should fund the arts. There are too few things that reach the heart and soul like the arts. To be a balanced person every child should have a well rounded education, which includes the arts. Whether it is music, painting, poetry or dancing, or the enjoyment of any art, it should be available. If the government won't fund the arts who will? We are becoming a culture without a soul. Anything that could help that problem would be a good thing for humanity now and in the future. If you want to look at it like funding education, that would be ok too. If there are schools for the arts they should be funded like any other educational institution.
Rrj
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 1:59:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2013 12:27:03 AM, rruthbj wrote:
Yes, I believe the government should fund the arts. There are too few things that reach the heart and soul like the arts. To be a balanced person every child should have a well rounded education, which includes the arts. Whether it is music, painting, poetry or dancing, or the enjoyment of any art, it should be available. If the government won't fund the arts who will? We are becoming a culture without a soul. Anything that could help that problem would be a good thing for humanity now and in the future. If you want to look at it like funding education, that would be ok too. If there are schools for the arts they should be funded like any other educational institution.

why not the private audience?