NationStates

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:09 pm**

Many goverment all around the world have different policies concerning their support for artistic projects.

However, what would be your ideal rules for such policies? Should there be a "minimal artistic value" bar for funding? Should commercially viable art be funded? Should government-funded art be able to criticize the rulers? Or better, should there even be goverment funding for artistic pursuits?

I believe that artistic projects that have high merits should be publically funded, even if they criticize the government, as long as they aren't financially feasible on their own.

And what do you think?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:31 pm**

No. First of all, Arts aren't necessary, and second of all, if they can't survive on their own, they shouldn't.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:37 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:No. First of all, Arts aren't necessary, and second of all, if they can't survive on their own, they shouldn't.

To be fair, many artists deemed the greatest (e.g. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Hieronymus Bosch) were well-paid.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:38 pm**

Petrolheadia wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:No. First of all, Arts aren't necessary, and second of all, if they can't survive on their own, they shouldn't.

To be fair, many artists deemed the greatest (e.g. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Hieronymus Bosch) were well-paid.

Were they not well-liked?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:40 pm**

I think priority should be given to job-generating artistic endeavors like film, games, etc, over individually driven projects like sculpting, literature, etc.

Ceolophysia wrote:No. First of all, Arts aren't necessary,

A lot of things aren't necessary m80.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:40 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
Petrolheadia wrote:To be fair, many artists deemed the greatest (e.g. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Hieronymus Bosch) were well-paid.

Were they not well-liked?

They were not beloved by the masses in their own time if that's what you're asking.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:41 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:No. First of all, Arts aren't necessary,

A lot of things aren't necessary m80.

Your point is?

Arts are good, but the government shouldn't fund them.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:43 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:Were they not well-liked?

They were not beloved by the masses in their own time if that's what you're asking.

Of course not the masses. The masses didn't have access to such luxuries, but were they well liked among the elite?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:43 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:Your point is?

That 'unnecessary' is a weak argument for anything.

Arts are good, but the government shouldn't fund them.

Why not?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:45 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:Your point is?

That 'unnecessary' is a weak argument for anything.
Arts are good, but the government shouldn't fund them.

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.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:45 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
Petrolheadia wrote:To be fair, many artists deemed the greatest (e.g. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Hieronymus Bosch) were well-paid.

Were they not well-liked?

At their time, the public didn't matter. they were funded by the rich and powerful of their time: Nobles, royals, wealthy merchants, the church, etc.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:47 pm**

West green Israel wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:Were they not well-liked?

At their time, the public didn't matter. they were funded by the rich and powerful of their time: Nobles, royals, wealthy merchants, the church, etc.

I meant among those who had access to their work, so were they well liked by the elite?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:48 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote: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,

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:48 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote: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,

6 already?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:57 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:

6 already?

Well they keep making money, and that is what counts, no?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:58 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:6 already?

Well they keep making money, and that is what counts, no?

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

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 1:59 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote: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,

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.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:02 pm**

Petrolheadia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:

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.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:03 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Well they keep making money, and that is what counts, no?

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?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:04 pm**

Purpelia wrote:
Petrolheadia wrote: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.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:04 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Well they keep making money, and that is what counts, no?

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

Art grants won't make Sharknado go away, but they do facilitate art created to be an expression of the artist's creative vision rather than art created to make money.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:04 pm**

Ceolophysia wrote:
West green Israel wrote:At their time, the public didn't matter. they were funded by the rich and powerful of their time: Nobles, royals, wealthy merchants, the church, etc.

I meant among those who had access to their work, so were they well liked by the elite?

Enough to receive few years of patronage or orders of their works, to say the least. otherwise, we wouldn't even heard about them.
however, at first they must had wealthy family or generous benefactor, or they couldn't create a thing.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:05 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote: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?

Sharknado seems pretty experimental to me. Also, neurofunk music, while far from mainstream, still does pretty well in a market economy.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:05 pm**

Petrolheadia wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:No. First of all, Arts aren't necessary, and second of all, if they can't survive on their own, they shouldn't.

To be fair, many artists deemed the greatest (e.g. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Hieronymus Bosch) were well-paid.

They were well paid under a system in which patronage granted prestige to the provider. If an artist made something, a patron could say "see that dope ass sculpture? That wouldn't be around if it wasn't for me."
We don't do that.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2018 2:06 pm**

West green Israel wrote:
Ceolophysia wrote:I meant among those who had access to their work, so were they well liked by the elite?

Enough to receive few years of patronage or orders of their works, to say the least. otherwise, we wouldn't even heard about them.
however, at first they must had wealthy family or generous benefactor, or they couldn't create a thing.

That doesn't excuse specifically government funding.

NationStates

Should the government fund arts?

Should the government fund arts?