Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should art be federally funded?

Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 4:09:03 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Absolutely not after funding the following:
National Debt
National Defense/Veterans' Care
Education
Alternative Energy
Health Care
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 4:54:11 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I could have sworn there was a topic like this one already. Maybe it was deleted. I dunno...

I think it is important to fund the arts. Art has been proven to increase the IQ in children, and artists enrich the lives of many.

I mean, if we are going to fund science, isn't it only fair that we fund the arts?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 10:08:42 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 4:54:11 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
I could have sworn there was a topic like this one already. Maybe it was deleted. I dunno...

I think it is important to fund the arts. Art has been proven to increase the IQ in children, and artists enrich the lives of many.

I mean, if we are going to fund science, isn't it only fair that we fund the arts?

I disagree. Whereas science actually fuels progress, art does not. Sure, art might increase the IQ of children, but there's plenty of art out there already. Making more of it isn't useful as far as that is concerned.

Not only that, but art is capable of being funded privately, unlike science which largely requires investments large enough that private entities are usually not interested.
If art becomes commercially unviable, let it become a less popular profession. There's no need to make it some sort of welfare profession, since it's not useful to society to do so.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 10:08:56 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Science has proven military uses (the military being an essential government function), art does not.

Furthermore, art reflects value systems, and all government funding of the arts in a tax-based country, amounts to not only forcing people to pay for something, which is bad enough, but forcing them to implicitly endorse the values of the state-sponsored artists. I don't mind if someone draws cartoons about productive businessmen in feces, but I am not willing to pay for such things.

It tends to reduce the quality of the art, too, insulating the artist from any demand for, I don't know, being good enough at it to make occasional money.

Of course, if a tax-free nation comes about, I'd live with it, but funding art with taxes is just going to piss me off even more than the tax itself.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 1:06:21 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Yes art should certainly be federally funded to a degree.

Art provides entertainment, stress reduction, and culture in itself.

While military may defend our nation, our nation may not be worth defending if we have no culture and don't adhere to the more gentler forms of vocation.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 1:34:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 1:06:21 PM, askbob wrote:
Yes art should certainly be federally funded to a degree.

Art provides entertainment, stress reduction, and culture in itself.

While military may defend our nation, our nation may not be worth defending if we have no culture and don't adhere to the more gentler forms of vocation.

If you truly believe an art programs should be funded as opposed to funding veteran care programs, then by all means tell the our brave soldiers that.

Tell the families of dead veterans that they deserve nothing for their loss.
Tell the homeless veterans that they don't need a home.
Tell the tax payers that they will have to tighten their belts.

We have enough art and culture.
We have too many starving artists and not enough industrious workers.
Artists are doing nothing to solve our country's problem.
Art programs and ALL other deceitful forms of special interest spending need to be eliminated.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 1:51:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 1:34:20 PM, Juggernaut wrote:
At 11/13/2008 1:06:21 PM, askbob wrote:
Yes art should certainly be federally funded to a degree.

Art provides entertainment, stress reduction, and culture in itself.

While military may defend our nation, our nation may not be worth defending if we have no culture and don't adhere to the more gentler forms of vocation.

If you truly believe an art programs should be funded as opposed to funding veteran care programs, then by all means tell the our brave soldiers that.

Tell the families of dead veterans that they deserve nothing for their loss.
Tell the homeless veterans that they don't need a home.
Tell the tax payers that they will have to tighten their belts.

We have enough art and culture.
We have too many starving artists and not enough industrious workers.
Artists are doing nothing to solve our country's problem.
Art programs and ALL other deceitful forms of special interest spending need to be eliminated.

Way to completely take what I said WAY out of context with some physciotic rant about how people are dying. Seriously this is a discussion not a rant and rave session. By all means do create another forum about how artists are the bane of all existence.

What I was saying is this:

.00011705% of the Federal Budget is used for spending on art programs (National Endowments for the Arts budget divided by the total income tax collected in 2008)

In 2006, 138,394,754 income tax filings were filed. The total income tax collected was 8,030,842,945.

This means that the average joe pays 58 dollars for income tax per person/family.

So lets say a family pays on average about 116 dollars.

Which means the average family pays roughly 2 cents to fund public art every year.

So can the american taxpayer afford 2 cents for art? Yes I think so. Some of its extremely odd, some I don't like. But I'd have to say I personally receive at least 2 cents pleasure from artwork every year.

Anyway, thats my two sense (pun)
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 2:25:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
But I'd have to say I personally receive at least 2 cents pleasure from artwork every year.

I don't, not from federally funded art. I receive far more than that from private art, which is of higher quality, and I pay for it :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:18:21 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 1:06:21 PM, askbob wrote:
Way to completely take what I said WAY out of context with some physciotic rant about how people are dying. Seriously this is a discussion not a rant and rave session. By all means do create another forum about how artists are the bane of all existence.

What I was saying is this:

.00011705% of the Federal Budget is used for spending on art programs (National Endowments for the Arts budget divided by the total income tax collected in 2008)

In 2006, 138,394,754 income tax filings were filed. The total income tax collected was 8,030,842,945.

This means that the average joe pays 58 dollars for income tax per person/family.

So lets say a family pays on average about 116 dollars.

Which means the average family pays roughly 2 cents to fund public art every year.

So can the american taxpayer afford 2 cents for art? Yes I think so. Some of its extremely odd, some I don't like. But I'd have to say I personally receive at least 2 cents pleasure from artwork every year.

Anyway, thats my two sense (pun)

Reduce federal art funding to zero.
It's not nearly as necessary as veteran's care.

We need alternative energy and people to work in that field.
We need agriculture and people to work in that field.
There is no demand for starving artists. In fact, the only field of work in this country which has more workers than needed is art and entertainment.

You may be thinking I'm taking things too extreme, but the truth is our government has to make priorities. Do we place our priorities to starving artists or do we shift them to veterans?

I believe that homeless veterans who have contributed a REAL service to this country should be prioritized, and given homes, but you may feel otherwise.
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:25:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
This is exactly society's biggest problem.

Everybody wants draw a picture of our problems, but nobody wants to get their hands dirty, get to work, and solve our problems.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:37:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Reduce federal art funding to zero.
It's not nearly as necessary as veteran's care.

We need alternative energy and people to work in that field.
We need agriculture and people to work in that field.
There is no demand for starving artists. In fact, the only field of work in this country which has more workers than needed is art and entertainment.

You may be thinking I'm taking things too extreme, but the truth is our government has to make priorities. Do we place our priorities to starving artists or do we shift them to veterans?

I believe that homeless veterans who have contributed a REAL service to this country should be prioritized, and given homes, but you may feel otherwise.

Ooook.

Apparently you have a personal issue with homeless veterans. Thats fine, however keep it off the forums.

If you prefer a future with no art or entertainment at the expense of two pennies then by all means move into the countries that our soldiers are defending this nation from.

However I like to think that the average American can contribute 2 cents a year to art.

I do not where you are getting this bogus crap about veterans care. I never said talked about exchanging veteran's benefits for art? Thats a completely ridiculous idea that you came up with out of nowhere.
There doesn't need to be priorities reguarding public art. It costs two cents. The American taxpayer can afford 2 cents.

Sorry come up with a better argument or at least an opinion that makes sense.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:45:40 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 1:51:49 PM, askbob wrote:
So can the american taxpayer afford 2 cents for art? Yes I think so. Some of its extremely odd, some I don't like. But I'd have to say I personally receive at least 2 cents pleasure from artwork every year.

Anyway, thats my two sense (pun)

My sentiment exactly.
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:53:56 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 3:37:51 PM, askbob wrote:
Reduce federal art funding to zero.
It's not nearly as necessary as veteran's care.

We need alternative energy and people to work in that field.
We need agriculture and people to work in that field.
There is no demand for starving artists. In fact, the only field of work in this country which has more workers than needed is art and entertainment.

You may be thinking I'm taking things too extreme, but the truth is our government has to make priorities. Do we place our priorities to starving artists or do we shift them to veterans?

I believe that homeless veterans who have contributed a REAL service to this country should be prioritized, and given homes, but you may feel otherwise.

Ooook.

Apparently you have a personal issue with homeless veterans. Thats fine, however keep it off the forums.

If you prefer a future with no art or entertainment at the expense of two pennies then by all means move into the countries that our soldiers are defending this nation from.

However I like to think that the average American can contribute 2 cents a year to art.

I do not where you are getting this bogus crap about veterans care. I never said talked about exchanging veteran's benefits for art? Thats a completely ridiculous idea that you came up with out of nowhere.
There doesn't need to be priorities reguarding public art. It costs two cents. The American taxpayer can afford 2 cents.

Sorry come up with a better argument or at least an opinion that makes sense.

Veterans ARE NOT special interest groups.

I do have an issue regarding our government shortchanging people who contribute their utmost services to this country. We need our educators. We need our farmers. We need our military. The three types of people I had listed have not received nearly as much benefits for their services to our country as they should be. And you are proposing to give benefits to careers which nobody is even asked for.

Special interest spending is wrong in every aspect and should be eliminated to nothing. Our government's job to bring prosperity and peace to everybody, not just special interest groups.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:59:27 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
This discussion has gone way off trail.

Although many do not appreciate it, art is important. By not federally recognizing its importance, art will diminish greatly.

Art defines a culture, and it's easy to forget that in the modern day world.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 4:17:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Veterans ARE NOT special interest groups.
Nowhere have I stated this or even insinuated, or even vaguely hinted at it. You are just making up bullcrap. Period.

I do have an issue
Agreed.

And you are proposing to give benefits to careers which nobody is even asked for.
For two cents? Certainly.
Not everyone wanted the /benefit/ of Barrack Obama being president, yet thats how it turned out.

Thats how democracy works.

Another example, food subsidies which you have advocated.

Food subsidies are completely unnecessary way more than art.

Special interest spending is wrong in every aspect and should be eliminated to nothing. Our government's job to bring prosperity and peace to everybody, not just special interest groups.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 4:46:25 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I guess you have successfully cherry picked which of my arguments you wanted to word-for-word nitpick and ignored the rest.

Funding the education system's art programs is debatable, but anything past that is extreme. While the public organization of art programs is to be encourage, our government isn't to play a role into our personal lives, telling us which special interests we have to fund.

Just remember, we aren't to spend a penny on anything which isn't vital until our $10,000,000,000,000 debt is paid off.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 5:00:12 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Making people happy is definitely a valuable service to community.

there is no such thing as a service to the community, only to individuals, unless the community is unanimous. I am part of the community of which we are speaking (the United States of America). I am not made happy by the federal funding of art. As such, this service to the "community" you are speaking of has not taken place, at the very most, the community minus one has been served, and the community minus one should pay for it.

If you prefer a future with no art or entertainment at the expense of two pennies then by all means move into the countries that our soldiers are defending this nation from.

Askbob, intellectually dishonesty = epic fail. No one is advocating a future with no art or entertainment. Just one in which art and entertainment are privately funded.

Veterans ARE NOT special interest groups.

Actually, they kind of are. It's not like the contract the government made with them said "we're going to infinitely increase your benefits forever." Nuh-uh. The government made a contract with them that they would go out and fight for a certain amount of pay, a certain pension plan, a certain health care plan, etc. What is in the contract, and nothing else, is what they have earned.
Heck, veterans even formally organize as special interest groups! http://www.enotes.com...

By not federally recognizing its importance, art will diminish greatly.

This has already been addressed. I don't see any PBS programs listed among your favorite TV shows, any PBS documentaries being listed among your favorite movies... nothing from a public university press on your favorite books list... evidently the art you enjoy is privately funded. :D

By having artists compete so they actually have to produce quality art in order to make any money for it, art that provides a value to someone they are actually willing to pay for, the quality of art goes up.

Not everyone wanted the /benefit/ of Barrack Obama being president, yet thats how it turned out.

Thats how democracy works.

Barack obama is not a benefit for me, and neither is most of the art the government funds. The remainder I'd willingly pay for without need for taxes.

Democracy is a system in which minorities are forced with the threat of violence to obey majority whims. Saying "That's how democracy works" does not excuse it, anymore than saying "That's how murder works" would excuse me sending a bullet into your head.

Another example, food subsidies which you have advocated.

Perhaps he has... make HIM pay for art then. Not me :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 10:07:05 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 4:46:25 PM, Juggernaut wrote:
I guess you have successfully cherry picked which of my arguments you wanted to word-for-word nitpick and ignored the rest.

I think this quote is more applicable to the person who made it than anyone on this site.

our government isn't to play a role into our personal lives, telling us which special interests we have to fund.

Really? Under this belief you think you'd be against funding veterans or people with special needs, or spending money to save endangered species or corn subsidies or subsidies for gasoline, or subsidies for milk, or subsidies for science, etc.


Just remember, we aren't to spend a penny on anything which isn't vital until our $10,000,000,000,000 debt is paid off.

Define vital. My definition of it is anything that isn't absolutely needed. We don't need to give veterans housing. So why not cut that? Why not cut funding for those with special needs. They aren't vital to our society?
How about cutting agriculture subsidies? You said you were actually for this?

Do define what is vital.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 10:25:09 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
there is no such thing as a service to the community, only to individuals, unless the community is unanimous. I am part of the community of which we are speaking (the United States of America). I am not made happy by the federal funding of art. As such, this service to the "community" you are speaking of has not taken place, at the very most, the community minus one has been served, and the community minus one should pay for it.

You are correct R_R however there is an important problem with the whole "please everyone schema"

Lets say for a moment we are not talking about art. Lets instead assume we are dealing with veterans benefits. Currently lets say the govt. is barely spending enough to cover them already. Now lets assume for the sake of argument that 20% of taxpayers are just a bunch of b@st@rds who don't care about the veterans. Since veteran's benefits don't make them happy they decide not to fund it. Now you have veterans getting crushed because 20% of taxpayers simply dont care.

Your assumption with the utopian please everyone schema is that everything has an incremental value. As I cannot purchase a quarter of an apple at a store, society cannot purchase 1/4 of veteran's benefits. Thus the reason for "majority rules" ideal.


Just one in which art and entertainment are privately funded.

Assuming that others are being dishonest when they rather have alternative logical views + trying to borrow 4chan lingo when you aren't of 4chan = facepalm.jpg

Let me walk you through why privatization of the art field simply does not work. Let me use another analogy to explain the situation. Lets assume that libraries became privately funded and only people who wished to read books payed for the library.

As you may or may not know. Many people living in small towns (such as the one I lived in) are complete idiots. (Personal experience). Even if they were not, you'd still get a 20% decrease in revenue at least. So you ask whats bad with this? Well the problem is that now libraries are incredibly smaller for small towns such as mine because the idiot citizens of the township won't pay for the library and the national govt. is no longer providing grants.

Therefore you have to travel to large cities to find newly updated books. The problem with this should be extremely obvious. If you are talking about just ending all libraries and going to just buying books then the problem should be even more obvious.

The exact same theory fits for art.

Veterans ARE NOT special interest groups.

By having artists compete so they actually have to produce quality art in order to make any money for it, art that provides a value to someone they are actually willing to pay for, the quality of art goes up.

This doesn't result in art this results in popularity contests. Anyone with a meager intelligence reguarding art history can tell you that some of the most famous artwork and musical work wasn't recognized or purchased until years after the creators had died.

Not giving funds to recognize the success of the artists would decimate ours and future cultures.

Democracy is a system in which minorities are forced with the threat of violence to obey majority whims. Saying "That's how democracy works" does not excuse it, anymore than saying "That's how murder works" would excuse me sending a bullet into your head.

I'm sick of this bullcrap about the minorities being screwed over in a democracy. If anything minorities are more voting bloc set than majorities.

Also there's a ridiculous amount of institutions in the US which cater to minorities. You try getting scholarships if your an average white guy. But if your anything else under the sun, women, different ethnicity, speak a different language, etc. you get loads of money.

Another example, food subsidies which you have advocated.

Perhaps he has... make HIM pay for art then. Not me :D.

See your argument fails when you assume that art is a profit making business. Art is culturally significant and therefore should be backed to a degree by the federal govt.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 11:05:13 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 10:25:09 PM, askbob wrote:
there is no such thing as a service to the community, only to individuals, unless the community is unanimous. I am part of the community of which we are speaking (the United States of America). I am not made happy by the federal funding of art. As such, this service to the "community" you are speaking of has not taken place, at the very most, the community minus one has been served, and the community minus one should pay for it.

You are correct R_R however there is an important problem with the whole "please everyone schema"

Lets say for a moment we are not talking about art. Lets instead assume we are dealing with veterans benefits. Currently lets say the govt. is barely spending enough to cover them already. Now lets assume for the sake of argument that 20% of taxpayers are just a bunch of b@st@rds who don't care about the veterans. Since veteran's benefits don't make them happy they decide not to fund it. Now you have veterans getting crushed because 20% of taxpayers simply dont care.

Well, in the future they should work for an organization that doesn't rely on stealing money from people. I don't steal from you to pay my debts, why should the government?

Nobody forces these veterans to fight. They chose to do it, they received their salaries.


Your assumption with the utopian please everyone schema is that everything has an incremental value. As I cannot purchase a quarter of an apple at a store, society cannot purchase 1/4 of veteran's benefits. Thus the reason for "majority rules" ideal.

First, it's not an ideal. Second, society doesn't purchase things. Third, I'm not in favor of "veteran's benefits." I think it would be much more efficient to give troops a fixed salary, and that paid for out of a government user fee upon payment of which the protection of the law was dependent.

You are essentially creating a problem which does not exist under the system I am advocating, the free rider problem. Free riders don't exist in significant when the only way there is a legal penalty for murdering you is if you pay :D




Just one in which art and entertainment are privately funded.

Assuming that others are being dishonest when they rather have alternative logical views + trying to borrow 4chan lingo when you aren't of 4chan = facepalm.jpg
Straw man fallacy=/= logical.


Let me walk you through why privatization of the art field simply does not work. Let me use another analogy to explain the situation. Lets assume that libraries became privately funded and only people who wished to read books payed for the library.

GREAT!
It's just like netflix, except it's netbooks :d.


As you may or may not know. Many people living in small towns (such as the one I lived in) are complete idiots. (Personal experience). Even if they were not, you'd still get a 20% decrease in revenue at least. So you ask whats bad with this? Well the problem is that now libraries are incredibly smaller for small towns such as mine because the idiot citizens of the township won't pay for the library and the national govt. is no longer providing grants.
Well then, you'll have to pay more for what you value, instead of enslaving that "idiot" (or dude who buys his own books). That's a pretty basic principle, you get what you pay for :D.


Therefore you have to travel to large cities to find newly updated books. The problem with this should be extremely obvious. If you are talking about just ending all libraries and going to just buying books then the problem should be even more obvious.

How so? And remember, Netbooks! Get them in the mail :D.


The exact same theory fits for art.

Veterans ARE NOT special interest groups.

By having artists compete so they actually have to produce quality art in order to make any money for it, art that provides a value to someone they are actually willing to pay for, the quality of art goes up.

This doesn't result in art this results in popularity contests. Anyone with a meager intelligence reguarding art history can tell you that some of the most famous artwork and musical work wasn't recognized or purchased until years after the creators had died.
So? Why should I pay for something that only someone in the future, instead of me, will enjoy? And you denounce popularity contests then go right into another one by putting "famousness" as the value of artwork.

Besides, there is more to it than popularity... wealthy patrons can sponsor unpopular work :D


Not giving funds to recognize the success of the artists would decimate ours and future cultures.
Please. Replacing what a few professors think is good art 100 years after the fact with art people recognize now will not destroy culture.


Democracy is a system in which minorities are forced with the threat of violence to obey majority whims. Saying "That's how democracy works" does not excuse it, anymore than saying "That's how murder works" would excuse me sending a bullet into your head.

I'm sick of this bullcrap about the minorities being screwed over in a democracy. If anything minorities are more voting bloc set than majorities.
Really? So, you mean the one who gets the majority of votes DOESNT rule in a democracy?


Also there's a ridiculous amount of institutions in the US which cater to minorities. You try getting scholarships if your an average white guy. But if your anything else under the sun, women, different ethnicity, speak a different language, etc. you get loads of money.
I wasn't speaking of RACIAL minorities, I was speaking of IDEOLOGICAL minorities.


Another example, food subsidies which you have advocated.

Perhaps he has... make HIM pay for art then. Not me :D.

See your argument fails when you assume that art is a profit making business. Art is culturally significant and therefore should be backed to a degree by the federal govt.
Art IS profit making, just go to an art auction rofl.

The federal government does not exist for the purpose of declaring what is culturally significant. It exists in order to retaliate against those who initiate force (murderers, thieves, foreign invaders, and whatnot). That is what government is for. Let the "culture" support what is culturally significant, whatever the hell that means. Oh wait, everything is culturally significant. Murder is culturally significant, it is an important part of how certain groups of people live their lives. Should it be subsidized?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 11:06:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Give me an example of an artwork you would like subsidized, and I'll give you an example of an artwork that can be profitable to make :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2008 4:59:27 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.yellow-springs.k12.oh.us...
http://www.perth.wa.gov.au...
http://dumbonyc.com...
http://middlezonemusings.com...
http://licsundial.net...
http://www.panoramio.com...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com...

etc.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2008 9:44:07 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Some of that I wouldn't consider art, but in any case much of it is quite probable to sell in the lobbies of various businesses (or in the Eiffel Tower's case, something similar in design could even HOUSE the business.

It's worth noting, I get NO VALUE from any of those structures.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2008 12:25:01 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
*sigh*

Feed yourself, Juggernaut.

Art yourself, Askbob.

Take care of yourself.

Don't enslave me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2008 8:31:54 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Since I sincerely don't think 2 pennies are really the difference between being enslaved or starving, or both, I do have to say (speaking colloquially) that's a slim argument.

Especially since most restaurants give away pennies as spare change in those little cups.

But if it's really just eating you both up inside, I get 12 cents pleasure from it. Enough for both of you and two buddies a piece

And really? We're going to have some of those pieces of public art be in lobbies? Let's be serious.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Juggernaut
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2008 6:38:21 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/14/2008 8:31:54 PM, askbob wrote:
Since I sincerely don't think 2 pennies are really the difference between being enslaved or starving, or both, I do have to say (speaking colloquially) that's a slim argument.

Especially since most restaurants give away pennies as spare change in those little cups.

But if it's really just eating you both up inside, I get 12 cents pleasure from it. Enough for both of you and two buddies a piece

And really? We're going to have some of those pieces of public art be in lobbies? Let's be serious.

I'm sure we all know a tolerance for special interest spending adds up to more than two cents. Special interest spending accounts for billions of our tax dollars.

National debt is the biggest issue here.
The United States in $10,000,000,000,000 worth of debt.

Americans are in no place to demand billions of dollars for their special interests.
Americans are in no place to even demand a penny for their special interests.

No special interest spending until the debt is paid off!
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2008 5:41:27 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm sure we all know a tolerance for special interest spending adds up to more than two cents.

Unless you either
1. Invented a new form of math
2. Can't add, subtract, divide or multiply

I'm pretty sure it does add up to two cents.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos