NATION

PASSWORD

Should the government fund arts?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should the government fund arts?

Yes, unconditionally.
36
26%
Yes, as long as they don't criticize it.
10
7%
Yes, as long as their artistic merits are great enough.
35
25%
Yes, as long as they aren't financially feasible on their own.
14
10%
No.
44
32%
 
Total votes : 139

User avatar
Hediacrana
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1225
Founded: Nov 20, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Hediacrana » Wed May 16, 2018 2:28 pm

I wish the options in the poll took issues of poverty and inequality into consideration.

For instance, my city has some nice publicly funded art sculptures in otherwise underfunded neighborhoods. These make art available to people who are not likely to set foot in any of our museums (which mainly cater to tourists, unfortunately). Many of the artists themselves belong to underprivileged demographics as well. I really don't think this use of public money is a bad thing.
Last edited by Hediacrana on Wed May 16, 2018 2:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.
'If you're not anti-war, then you're not fiscally conservative, and you're certainly not pro-life.'
Parent, spouse, leftist Christian and suspected witch.
She/her.

User avatar
Pope Joan
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19500
Founded: Mar 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Pope Joan » Wed May 16, 2018 2:33 pm

Hediacrana wrote:I wish the options in the poll took issues of poverty and inequality into consideration.

For instance, my city has some nice publicly funded art sculptures in otherwise underfunded neighborhoods. These make art available to people who are not likely to set foot in any of our museums (which mainly cater to tourists, unfortunately). Many of the artists themselves belong to underprivileged demographics as well. I really don't think this use of public money is a bad thing.


Yes, the WPA did good things along those lines, and I can't see how that would hurt anyone.

But making rich artists richer at public expense is unsupportable.
"Life is difficult".

-M. Scott Peck

User avatar
NeoOasis
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1099
Founded: Apr 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby NeoOasis » Wed May 16, 2018 4:39 pm

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
NeoOasis wrote:I want to say yes, but I'm not entirely sure why.

I do know government often funds artists to paint murals in public buildings or commission mounments. But government funding artists to just do art... I'm not sure I entirely support that idea. By that logic why shouldn't the government fund the humanities such as history or philiosophy?


I'm fairly certain that commissioning and funding artists to create art in public areas (this includes the outdoors) IS the definition of funding arts.

It gives artists a job and embellishes our public infrastructure.


Yes, seems we're on the same page here. But from the OP, I got an impression that any and all art would be funded by the government. I was thinking along the lines of an artist welfare to some extent. That I would disagree with. Selected works being specifically commissioned by the government I'm less opposed to... even if some of their choices seem questionable at best.
Eternally salty, quite tired, and perhaps looking for a brighter future.

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Grinning Dragon, Hurdergaryp, Jerzylvania, Juansonia, Neo-American States, New Temecula, Republics of the Solar Union, Stellar Colonies, The Black Forrest, Tiami, Tungstan, X3-U

Advertisement

Remove ads