s mckee
12-01-1999, 05:01 AM
Should the arts be subsidized by government?
Those on the right become livid. "That garbage? My five year old could have made it! It's not art. Why should I have to pay my hard-earned tax dollar to support that crap?"
Those in the center are also, generally, against much arts funding. Their argument against it is less emotionally spastic than that of those on the right. "I have a problem with my tax dollar going to support an artist who mocks not only my way of life, but also the very government that supports him."
Those on the left support all funding for all arts as an automatic, college/coffee-house learned reaction. They support funding, often, only because they so desperately despise the bourgeouis right that they want to be seen opposing it in any way they can. But there IS an argument on the left; that many artists fall through the cracks in a capitalist society - that allowing the arts to be controlled by the same market conditions as everything else will create a dead art and that as a result, society as a whole will suffer.
Personally, I have no strong opinion on the whole public funding for arts question. This is because I realize that the total amount of money spent by government on the arts is a drop in the bucket compared with the amount it spends on all sorts of excesses, like wining-and-dining wealthy despots, or over-paying specialists to write reports that nobody reads.
What is it then, about this teensy-weensy, relatively PUNY bit of government spending, that gets people so absolutely furious - on BOTH sides of the argument?
Those on the right become livid. "That garbage? My five year old could have made it! It's not art. Why should I have to pay my hard-earned tax dollar to support that crap?"
Those in the center are also, generally, against much arts funding. Their argument against it is less emotionally spastic than that of those on the right. "I have a problem with my tax dollar going to support an artist who mocks not only my way of life, but also the very government that supports him."
Those on the left support all funding for all arts as an automatic, college/coffee-house learned reaction. They support funding, often, only because they so desperately despise the bourgeouis right that they want to be seen opposing it in any way they can. But there IS an argument on the left; that many artists fall through the cracks in a capitalist society - that allowing the arts to be controlled by the same market conditions as everything else will create a dead art and that as a result, society as a whole will suffer.
Personally, I have no strong opinion on the whole public funding for arts question. This is because I realize that the total amount of money spent by government on the arts is a drop in the bucket compared with the amount it spends on all sorts of excesses, like wining-and-dining wealthy despots, or over-paying specialists to write reports that nobody reads.
What is it then, about this teensy-weensy, relatively PUNY bit of government spending, that gets people so absolutely furious - on BOTH sides of the argument?