Should the government fund arts?

[Korasta]

Surely the government has better things to waste its money on than a few people prancing about on a stage like some kind of rutting deer? Or a wannabe Van Gogh for that matter. I mean, sure publicise and support certain projects, but don't fund them. They can create a kickstarter or whatever for that.

[Petrolheadia]

Yes, but I don't think government funding for the arts is going to help fix that.

Government funding for the arts helps reduce the profit motive allowing for more experimental and less pandering works.

Does anyone really think Tarkovsky would have succeeded pitching his ideas to Hollywood?

Maybe not Hollywood, but he would do well in Sundance, Cannes, etc.

Counterpoint - even the daring artists, like Banksy or Damien Hirst, have their work privately-funded. And it's not an ironic, "it's so bad, it is good", fandom.

Except Sharknado is just genuinely unironically good. It's like Jason X. Just plain fun.

It's like the beater overloaded Caprice station wagon I have in BeamNG.drive - by having only a bit above 100 HP at nearly two tonnes, an open diff and going on three wheels in every corner, it's at the same time the worst and the best track car ever.

[Kubra]

Government funding for the arts helps reduce the profit motive allowing for more experimental and less pandering works.

Does anyone really think Tarkovsky would have succeeded pitching his ideas to Hollywood?

Maybe not Hollywood, but he would do well in Sundance, Cannes, etc.

He did do well there. However, given his film budgets, there was no way he'd get away with doing what he did without a powerful state that was also kinda dumb when it came to finances. Worked out great for us, the soviet union put out some crazy films that have yet to be matched in their scope, not so good for the box office.

[Ifreann]

Surely the government has better things to waste its money on than a few people prancing about on a stage like some kind of rutting deer? Or a wannabe Van Gogh for that matter. I mean, sure publicise and support certain projects, but don't fund them. They can create a kickstarter or whatever for that.

Governments have shitloads of money. They can spare a few million on the arts without losing out on any roads to nowhere.

[Kubra]

In any case, paying for culture is like paying for porn. I'm only going to do it if there's literally no other way I can masturbate, otherwise I'm going to browse pictures on the internet or wait for an art museums holiday discount.
Good shit here ain't profitable.

[Saiwania]

Huge waste of money. At least a fiber optic infrastructure would substantially boost the national internet speed.

[Ceolophysia]

Surely the government has better things to waste its money on than a few people prancing about on a stage like some kind of rutting deer? Or a wannabe Van Gogh for that matter. I mean, sure publicise and support certain projects, but don't fund them. They can create a kickstarter or whatever for that.

Governments have shitloads of money. They can spare a few million on the arts without losing out on any roads to nowhere.

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

[Kubra]

Huge waste of money. At least a fiber optic infrastructure would substantially boost the national internet speed.

The difference is you and I pay for internet
with money
maybe monthly

[Kubra]

Governments have shitloads of money. They can spare a few million on the arts without losing out on any roads to nowhere.

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

do we not need culture

[Ifreann]

Governments have shitloads of money. They can spare a few million on the arts without losing out on any roads to nowhere.

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

I think it would be better if we destroyed the capitalist machine and ate the rich.

---

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

do we not need culture

"I cannot live without books" - Spock, Civ.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Art creates culture, culture rases a nation.

I see no reason not to fund it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That 'unnecessary' is a weak argument for anything.

Why not?

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, so there's no need for government funding. The only reason art won't be accepted is if most people don't like it.

>he says as studios release generic superhero movie #33

The free market has ruined art because it pays better to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's a place for the free market in the arts, but there is also something to be said for funding ventures for the artistic merit of the project.

[Petrolheadia]

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, so there's no need for government funding. The only reason art won't be accepted is if most people don't like it.

>he says as studios release generic superhero movie #33

The free market has ruined art because it pays better to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's a place for the free market in the arts, but there is also something to be said for funding ventures for the artistic merit of the project.

Some people just can't cater to the LCD, and for them, there is a wide arthouse demographic.

It's like how the market makes both charity stores and yacht builders viable.

[Ceolophysia]

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

do we not need culture

We need it, but we don't need the government to fund it. Private industry is sufficient.

---

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

I think it would be better if we destroyed the capitalist machine and ate the rich.

Cannibalism is bad.

[Saiwania]

The difference is you and I pay for internet with money, maybe monthly

Private ISPs aren't going to do everything that is needed to get the US internet as good as South Korea's for example. It would be within the government's power to facilitate 100% internet coverage, like there is 100% electrification.

[The East Marches II]

The government already spends too much money on useless stuff and already takes too much out of citizens' paychecks. I think it would be better just to cut taxes when money isn't needed instead of spending it on something else we don't need.

do we not need culture

When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun :^)

[Ceolophysia]

do we not need culture

When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun :^)

…

Why?

[The East Marches II]

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,

The Sharknado films were masterpieces, please don't bully

[United Muscovite Nations]

>he says as studios release generic superhero movie #33

The free market has ruined art because it pays better to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's a place for the free market in the arts, but there is also something to be said for funding ventures for the artistic merit of the project.

Some people just can't cater to the LCD, and for them, there is a wide arthouse demographic.

It's like how the market makes both charity stores and yacht builders viable.

The arthouse demographic isn't generally strong enough for studios to shill out big bucks to cater to it.

[Kubra]

do we not need culture

When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun :^)

Irony of quoting a play for this tho
like what did johst mean by this

[Ceolophysia]

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, so there's no need for government funding. The only reason art won't be accepted is if most people don't like it.

>he says as studios release generic superhero movie #33

The free market has ruined art because it pays better to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's a place for the free market in the arts, but there is also something to be said for funding ventures for the artistic merit of the project.

Experimental art is terrible.

Also, don't touch my Marvel.

[The East Marches II]

When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun :^)

Irony of quoting a play for this tho
like what did johst mean

Its for the ironic effect I think. A meta meme :^)

Tho to be real culture is bad for you.

[Kubra]

The difference is you and I pay for internet with money, maybe monthly

Private ISPs aren't going to do everything that is needed to get the US internet as good as South Korea's for example. It would be within the government's power to facilitate 100% internet coverage, like there is 100% electrification.

And muscle in on the private ISP's? Not gonna happen.
Besides, I get 20mpbs, I'm satisfied.

[Petrolheadia]

Some people just can't cater to the LCD, and for them, there is a wide arthouse demographic.

It's like how the market makes both charity stores and yacht builders viable.

The arthouse demographic isn't generally strong enough for studios to shill out big bucks to cater to it.

It's the film version of the sports car market.

Yes, it is not as big as what you have for compact cars, but we're still getting new Ferraris and Lamborghinis and Corvettes and Porsches and whatnot.

[The East Marches II]

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, so there's no need for government funding. The only reason art won't be accepted is if most people don't like it.

>he says as studios release generic superhero movie #33

The free market has ruined art because it pays better to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's a place for the free market in the arts, but there is also something to be said for funding ventures for the artistic merit of the project.

Please, as if the government funded art has been much better. Its all trash. Avant garde is try hard. Thank God they didn't ruin the Chicago Art Museum, thats a pretty great place.