iaink

But I'm a wishy washy dyed in the wool LIBERAL engineer...


Im so conflicted....

Oink

Personally think publicly funding any art is a slippery slope as it brings up the age-old question, what is art? Is it just upper-middle class pretentious crap or would monster trucks qualify? Maybe arts funding should be left to NGOs or private commissions.

scrubbedexpat091

Only so much money to go around and arts really should not be a top priority in a recession. Art is a luxury,

Alan2005

I would argue that "blue sky science" (as you put it) is an investment, where as art is a luxury.

The problem with arts funding is that the consumers of it are typically in your demographic. The middle classes don't currently need subsidising (tho they will soon enough given the rate of middle class wealth destruction that is occuring) and so can afford to pay for it themselves. i.e. if you like art, and can afford it why not commission a young artist to create something for you. Ultimately, it's because everyone is too selfish and we need to be forced to pay for things like the arts otherwise we won't.

iaink

Having said that I still dont really see the point in government funding of the arts. People do art for the love of doing art dont they, and would do it regardless of funding. If you make money at it, thats great, but van gogh never did, but he kept on keeping on.

Likewise, scientists do science because they love science, but things like particle accelerators and electron microscopes are well outside the reach of the private individual, and many technological breakthroughs that make life better for humanity spring from that work.

Sure, the mona lisa puts a smile on your face, but Id rather have my notebook than the monalisa

I guess Im saying that if I had to chose between one or the other Id fund the scientists and point out that some paper and crayons are not going to be beyond the reach of anyone who really wants to paint or write...

Oink

I think in sociology its poststructuralist, but that's splitting hairs.

Now didn't someone mention old people and structure of scientific revolutions?

Butch Cassidy

OK

Once more Butch decides to be inflammatory (JOKE but who knows how the following will be construed)

Van Gogh (like so many of his time) had a series of 'Patrons'

Bolshoi Ballet? State funded

If we are to withdraw funding from the arts (and blue sky research) should we also withdraw funding from sports?

In Calgary we have a 'wonderful' Police Force last night on my way home I passed through a 'sketchy area' of town. I saw four 'ladies' and three 'homeless' gentlemen and no less than four marked squad cars, two marked vans and an unmarked car!! Thats (a minimum of) one of Calgary's Finest to each 'undesirable'. A case of overkill and odd deployment of resources wouldnt you say? The same force has just commited christ knows what to fitting all our fine young boys in 'blue' out with nice black stetsons for when they have to 'walk the beat'. Erm I wonder if the city could have perhaps used this money more wisely, like providing shelters for those homeless gentlemen? More sports facilities?

Novocastrian

You draw the definition of art rather strangely. I've no desire to "own", in a personal sense, any artistic object or work. My point is that public art, whether publicly funded or not, makes living in a place less unbearable for everybody.

iaink

Patrons I have no problem with, their money to do what they want with.... For van gogh mostly it was his brother wasnt it...he never sold a painting in his life.

Everything in russia was state controlled for a while...

Oink

I think the Bolshoi Theatre was only state funded as everything in the USSR was state funded. Before that it was the domain of the monarchy.

That's my point, public art that doesn't represent the state's ideology is pointless.

Butch Cassidy

Royal Ballet? Tate Gallery?

To be honest I have no problem with REDUCING the funding of 'art'. I just see it as the thin edge of the wedge. As I said if 'they' get away with this, where next? If 'they' have a good economic reason AND 'they' are spending wisely in other areas and this is the only way to reduce a budget defecit fair enough.

Oink

Don't you think our money could be spent in a more socially beneficial way, like more hospital beds or old peoples homes rather than on some smacked out half-wit who thinks sticking crayons up a elephant bottom, is art?

Butch Cassidy

If you would care to read the underlined and bolded parts of my post I believe you will find the answer is affirmative.

Indeed if you read my first post I believe you will find I mentioned shelters for the 'at risk'

Alan2005

It doesn't matter if you want to own it or not. If you think it needs doing you can always put up your own money to get it done - if you decide to be philanthropic and give it to the public then that's your prerogative. What you are suggesting is forcing your (or at least somebodies) values and taste on everyone and making them pay for the privilege.

Alan2005

And the balet is a very bad example. People that like balet can well afford to pay for it themselves!