Should the government fund arts?

[Sovaal]

Eh, there are worse things they can spend it on.

[Exosar]

As long as it's good art, then yes.

[Valrifell]

Most of the great world masterpieces were made without government funding.

They weren't made on artists salary, either.

Literally most or all Renaissance painters were funded through local lords, wealthy merchants, or the Church. Though most found themselves in the courts of the nobility and Church.

Basically the government.

[Argin]

Yes, they should.

Some of the art that is made can represent the culture of the nation, tbh.
(Not everything, of course)

[Sovaal]

Yes, they should.

Some of the art that is made can represent the culture of the nation, tbh.
(Not everything, of course)

Why some but not all? I mean isn’t art an integral part of culture?

[Ifreann]

A chance. To dismiss all public funding of art, because there is a chance that they will dare have the gall to fund modern art? You are using a bit of a broad brush there methinks.

I still don't want my money going to them if there is a chance. Art is in the eye of the beholder, ergo, if government beurocrats think that a broken toilet is art, they are gonna fund that rather than my art money going into art I like.

Once the tax collectors take it, it stops being your money.

[The New California Republic]

I still don't want my money going to them if there is a chance. Art is in the eye of the beholder, ergo, if government beurocrats think that a broken toilet is art, they are gonna fund that rather than my art money going into art I like.

Once the tax collectors take it, it stops being your money.

Good point. You can't pick and choose where your tax money goes.

[Argin]

Yes, they should.

Some of the art that is made can represent the culture of the nation, tbh.
(Not everything, of course)

Why some but not all? I mean isn’t art an integral part of culture?

It depends on the artist and their style, I think. Their opinion of the country should also be taken into account.

[Valrifell]

Why some but not all? I mean isn’t art an integral part of culture?

It depends on the artist and their style, I think. Their opinion of the country should also be taken into account.

But sometimes it can be revealed the public loves something they didn't even know they wanted.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because they aren't something that the government needs to fund. Private industry does a very good job of keeping the arts alive as of right now,

WHICH IS ART

[The New California Republic]

It depends on the artist and their style, I think. Their opinion of the country should also be taken into account.

But sometimes it can be revealed the public loves something they didn't even know they wanted.

Like a broken toilet, for example.

[Firaxin]

It should not be funded, the government has better things to spend money on. I don't think culture is as important as some people say, nor is art the main part of culture.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean then we get into the rocky territory of the government classifying what is and isn’t art

[Internationalist Bastard]

It should not be funded, the government has better things to spend money on. I don't think culture is as important as some people say, nor is art the main part of culture.

Art is a pretty important part of culture mate
What do you think is important?

[Sovaal]

Why some but not all? I mean isn’t art an integral part of culture?

It depends on the artist and their style, I think. Their opinion of the country should also be taken into account.

So essentially if a higher authority seems it ‘kosher’ or not.

[Sovaal]

It should not be funded, the government has better things to spend money on. I don't think culture is as important as some people say, nor is art the main part of culture.

Culture is not unimportant that only every human society to have ever existed and will likely ever exist has had it. That’s all. And their isn’t really a ‘main part’ to cukutre, more a collection of parts.

[Valrifell]

It should not be funded, the government has better things to spend money on. I don't think culture is as important as some people say, nor is art the main part of culture.

"art" as a broad term includes everything from film to food, not just paintings

[Firaxin]

It should not be funded, the government has better things to spend money on. I don't think culture is as important as some people say, nor is art the main part of culture.

Art is a pretty important part of culture mate
What do you think is important?

I feel the type of government is more important, next is the attitude of the people, internal politics, and then art.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It should not be funded, the government has better things to spend money on. I don't think culture is as important as some people say, nor is art the main part of culture.

"art" as a broad term includes everything from film to food, not just paintings

Music, fashion, stories, a lot of things that are important in people’s lives

[Internationalist Bastard]

Art is a pretty important part of culture mate
What do you think is important?

I feel the type of government is more important, next is the attitude of the people, internal politics, and then art.

None of that is culture though. And the attitude of the people is heavily shaped by the culture

[Firaxin]

I feel the type of government is more important, next is the attitude of the people, internal politics, and then art.

None of that is culture though. And the attitude of the people is heavily shaped by the culture

I see it as culture.

[Internationalist Bastard]

None of that is culture though. And the attitude of the people is heavily shaped by the culture

I see it as culture.

Well that’s mighty wierd way to look at culture
Many countries have highly oppressive governments and cultures full of people who do nothing but ignore the rules set by the government. Like the huge pirate scene in Saudi Arabia

[VoVoDoCo]

Very few dollars are actually spent on the Arts. However:

• Republicans could use that money to increase military power or just give it back through tax breaks.
• Democrats could use that money and invest it in social programs.
• Both Parties could use that to invest in education or or transportation.

I don't see a real compelling reason why the arts are worth it.

If you choose to not subsidize all art, you're left with a similar problem to state-religion relationships. If only some art is chosen for subsidies (if not profitable isn't part of the equation) then that means some art won't be chosen for subsidies. That means the government must choose between different pieces of art. That means the government has the power to make certain forms of artistic expression not profitable. That's unfair to fringe artists. The ability to choose which form of art deserves state funds is to show an unacceptable amount of favoritism.

If you choose to subsidize all art, you risk spending money on pieces of shit. And blowing it on fancy doodles that could've been better spent on more critical parts of your respective political ideologies.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I definitely want to be taxed to preserve existing art. Not keen on governments commissioning new art, because I don't think they can do it effectively.

[Van Riebeeck Land]

No, there are better things that actually help, medical research, business subsidization, improving the welfare system.