Alan2005

It seems that the BC government is slashing funding for the arts and arts projects throughout the province.

Kim Catrall (harpy from sex in the city) gave a press conference (link) about it yesterday slating the government for the cutbacks. I could argue that if she is the product of BC arts funding then it can't be cut quickly enough, or that if she's done so well maybe she could stop doing a bono and put her hand in her own pocket. However that would miss the point, and that is should the state be funding the arts or not?

iaink

Can someone explain to me why the government should be funding the arts at all?

Were neanderthal cave painters government funded, or Michaelangelo, or Renoir, Shelly? Keats? Picasso?

I dont see much benefit Im afraid. We do it because other governments do it...is that the argument?

dbd33

Funded by the church, a quasi-governmental organisation at the time.

Alan2005

I would see that as Michaelangelo selling his work to the church. He got cash, the church got the sistine chapel. It's a fine line, but I think it is different from subsidising an artist with no expectation of any tangible return.

I'm not sure where I stand (which is why I put this up for debate). I can see that culture and the arts enrich our lives and shouldn't be the preserve of the rich, however most arts funding actually ends up subsidising the middle classes, who if they really wanted art could pay for it themselves.

Oink

She is an appalling woman.

I have no problem funding children's arts, through schools and youth clubs etc. But publicly funding lay-about adults, who don't want to get a real job, is . . . dare I say it.

Alan2005

I do believe you've now got a catch phrase. Nicely done.

Edit to make not off topic (it's my thread!): I kind of agree about children's arts, but isn't that education rather than arts funding?

iaink

If the church want to pay for a nice painted ceiling thats fine with me. Giving money to the church is not mandatory (as I've tried and failed to explain to my wife...)

Why should I as a tax payer subsidise some bohemian who wont get a real job? If their art is worthy and good, someone somewhere will pay for it. If its not then it should stay a hobby and they should pay their own way.

Alan2005

At the time of Michaelangelo giving to the church probably was mandatory. I do think that the state should occasionally be commissioning works of art to be on public display (statues, paintings, buildings etc); but I'm inclined to agree with the 'stop spending my taxes on beatniks who don't want a job' sentiment. Blimey - talk about fence sitting

iaink

But it still wasnt exactly government. You expect touchy feely cultural/ spiritual type nonsense from the church.

Oink

Yes, effectively its the same thing. As regards to arts funding. Publicly funding the arts/artist work in an ideological vacuum is rather pointless and sort of begs the question as to what type of art should be supported.

iaink

The danger of this argument I suppose is that the majority of blue sky science is funded by the governement too for no immediate economic return, although some of that can lead to worthwhile technological advances eventually.

Oink

Exactly. People putting soiled nappies into a vat of formaldehyde and then putting it on a plinth doesn't quite have the same social utility as say, cancer research.

Novocastrian

Yes, I was going to point that out. As a scientist though, I'm all for public funding of the arts. Just as as a middle class wage-earner I'm all in favour of redistributive taxation policy. It's a test of society's fundamental humanity.

<I wouldn't expect an engineer to agree though >

Novocastrian

But it's a lot more use than post-modernist sociology.

iaink

Ah, but what about say.....deep space research, understanding black holes etc? Its all very interesting, but its not going to actually make my life any better than funding some bloody awful poetry.

Cutting government funding for one thing with no obvious benefit is a slippery slope is all Im saying...