NationStates Jolt Archive

I just submitted a proposal ("No Funding for the Arts") that the UN not recognize any form of government sponsorship for the arts. Yeah, it's random, but I like to do that. In real life it's an issue that I think needs more attention, since it's a waste of my tax dollars to fund the arts, when all that money that goes to the NEA could be spent on something useful. Throw in your support!

Oh yeah, I think it could loosely be considered an international issue on this game because all governments should limit spending to useful stuff, and just let artists find their own money. If the you gotta follow UN rules in theory on this game, why not follow a rule that limits pork barrel spending on at least one subject? :D

Why stop there? What I want to know is why are my tax dollars being spent on libraries? Let people buy their own books!

Do you realize how important the arts are? If people can't afford to express theyre own creativity (maybe this is biased because I'm an up-and-coming artist) then they will become disimpassioned towards learning. What are you going to try and force the UN to budget cut next, sports? Education? Literacy?

Shouldn't this be sovereign anyways?

All I can say is: why should you care if my nation sponsors the arts? How is this an issue of international concern?

All I can say is: why should you care if my nation sponsors the arts? How is this an issue of international concern?

Exactly!

There is already a daily issue for this. There is no need to pass a resolution for it.

I know the arts are an integral part of society, but people do not need tax dollars to express their creativity or whatever. I've been studying music performance in college, so I'm not new to the art scene, but I still think government money is best spent when left to education, highway systems, national defense, etc. The way I see it, artists are just businessmen, marketing their products using their own money they generate from sales (or concert tickets, or donations, etc). They do not need government grants anymore than Walmart needs tax dollars to keep themselves in business. As for why this is an international issue...well, I just decided I wanted it to be. :D I enjoy posting random things and reading the different replies I get. Anyways, since UN rules on this game undermine sovereignty (supposedly my country has to honor gay "marriage" and such), I assumed it would do people good to require channeling tax dollars into appropriate projects.

Arts funding is essential to maintaining a strong and diverse culture. Without it, our nation and many others would be much worse off.

Not funding the arts will not make the culture wither up and die. You can have a strong culture without tax dollars being wasted on art. Maybe we should give government money to churches to maintain a strong culture too?

According to the latest opinion polls most my people don't mind paying for the arts. Those that do not like the arts, generally speaking, don't mind. Not everyone used free medical care or goes to school but they still pay for it.

The arts are very important in our culture and artists are some of the most respected members of our society.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Well, in my society, the most respected members are the police, firemen, paramedics, doctors, soldiers, and those who work to build up society. Entertainment is good and necessary in a society, but not worthy of government sponsorship.

We're using 'culture' in different ways here. I'm using the narrow sense; you're using the broad one. Leaving the arts unfunded will lead inevitably to short-term, faddish art of less lasting value; we're concerned about encouraging artists to produce more ambitious, lasting product that'll benefit the nation for centuries, instead of whatever rubbish they can get to sell.

And, yeah, we do fund churches, since the things are expensive to build, and since we tax religious organisations just as we would any other group. (Of course, it'd be more accurate to say 'we fund temples', since we have a Christian population of under one per cent). As a matter of fact, due to collaboration between the Ministries of Personal Development and of Wu-Wei, religious and artistic funding are often assigned to the same project.

Well, in my society, the most respected members are the police, firemen, paramedics, doctors, soldiers, and those who work to build up society.
A praiseworthy attitude. A nation that pays its lawyers (or, worse, its CEOs) more than its teachers and doctors is, in our opinion, corrupt.

Entertainment is good and necessary in a society, but not worthy of government sponsorship.
We regard the arts as more than mere entertainment.

Art has been hijacked by the bourgeoisie. It's been given value and made symbols of wealth and status. Art was also hijacked to give snonby no talents a feeling of cultural superiority and a feeling of intellectualism. It's just plain out ridiculous that people pass themselves off as intellectual by discussing a picture.

Art was created by early cave men as a means of entertainment, expression. Art should be accessable to everyone. Everyone should practice art in the world and not have it judged. It shouldn't matter if it looks beautiful or like mish mash, art should only have personal value. Stop with the art galleries and museums. Makes art snooty and elitist!!!

Art has been hijacked by the bourgeoisie. It's been given value and made symbols of wealth and status.

Well, we don't necessarily agree with that statement but we see where you are coming from with it. In the interests of fraternity, we shall let it pass.


Art was also hijacked to give snonby no talents a feeling of cultural superiority and a feeling of intellectualism. It's just plain out ridiculous that people pass themselves off as intellectual by discussing a picture.

However, might you consider the idea that if a painting has greater meaning than just what it appears to represent, surely there is merit in discussing that meaning, particuarly in the paintings of non representaional art, like Rothko's seagram paintings for example. There is a difference between engaging with a painting and just talking bollocks-- although we admit it is often hard to tell.


Art was created by early cave men as a means of entertainment, expression. Art should be accessable to everyone. Everyone should practice art in the world and not have it judged. It s
Indeed, art should be accessible to everyone which is why we are perplexed at your idea that there should be no more museums. Surely art should have more public spaces, which amongst other things, would mean more galleries and museums.


It shouldn't matter if it looks beautiful or like mish mash, art should only have personal value.

But that is elitism in itself, surely? If one takes away the social value and social meaning of art, and replaces that with pure subjectivism, then we have taken away accessibility, of understanding, we have not increased it. I do not believe that art must be pleasing to the art to be art, no. But I believe that surely, art must be part of the world around us.

Now to the main piece:

I just submitted a proposal ("No Funding for the Arts") that the UN not recognize any form of government sponsorship for the arts. Yeah, it's random, but I like to do that.

Fair enough. I see you also like to weigh in with anti democratic proposals, given that in a democratic nation, it is the voting public who, one way or another, gets to decide on what they would like to see their taxes spent on.


In real life it's an issue that I think needs more attention, since it's a waste of my tax dollars to fund the arts, when all that money that goes to the NEA could be spent on something useful. Throw in your support!

This another argument entirely, and I would argue is a debate that should be had in general, and not here, particuarly when your line of argument is so specific to America. Without a Google search, I would have no idea what the letters NEA stand for (I'll take a stab at Nation Endowment for the Arts, and probably miss by a million miles). Trying to use a UN proposal as ruse to talk about American politics is rather underhanded.

WCGs,

WLP Central Committee,
Albion Soviets

The Emperor has ordered art phased out by 2007. It distracts from more important things like fighting off barbarians and training the dreaded Wendigo.

Ecopoeia has no desire to support such a philistine proposal.

Arkady Bogdanov
Speaker for Culture

Albion Soviets! Long time, no see... we have some information we believe may be of use to you on the whereabouts of a certain John Marat...

What's that? Oh yes, the proposal. Not the sort of thing the UN should be dabbling in, really...

There is no way one nation's decisions for or against support of the arts impinges upon the decisions of any other nation.

This is futile legislation.

If you are interested in providing public art while saving the public budget, you may wish to follow our example. We sent each high school student a package of six spray paint cans. Black, white, green, and the 3 primaries.

Within hours, our nation had all the public art it could stand.

The first edifice to be buried under a creative mound of graffiti was the "Snobs R Us" Art Gallery.

Well, in my society, the most respected members are the police, firemen, paramedics, doctors, soldiers, and those who work to build up society. Entertainment is good and necessary in a society, but not worthy of government sponsorship.

You’ll notice I said ‘some’ but you have made a valid point. Our societies are different and as long as no one is being hurt (badly) by it there is not much need for UN interference.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?