NationStates Jolt Archive

How much support should artists get from government?

I read a piece in the local paper that mentioned one of the metro counties spends more on art than it does on repairing roads. That seems a little silly. On the other hand, it seems like the easiest way to identify a government building is by the butt-ugly piece of sculpture in front of it.

It's pretty clear that most of these artists with governmental patrons just couldn't cut it. They need to have the city, state, fed, take money from some citizen and buy their work because they could never sell it. Look at this NYC thing by Cristo. What business does NYC have in spending $21 million on a bunch of orange drapes? The fact that I don't appreciate it makes my case. Isn't art supposed to be enjoyed? Too many questions, sorry.

Where should government support end?

How much support should artists get from government?

I read a piece in the local paper that mentioned one of the metro counties spends more on art than it does on repairing roads. That seems a little silly. On the other hand, it seems like the easiest way to identify a government building is by the butt-ugly piece of sculpture in front of it.

It's pretty clear that most of these artists with governmental patrons just couldn't cut it. They need to have the city, state, fed, take money from some citizen and buy their work because they could never sell it. Look at this NYC thing by Cristo. What business does NYC have in spending $21 million on a bunch of orange drapes? The fact that I don't appreciate it makes my case. Isn't art supposed to be enjoyed? Too many questions, sorry.

Where should government support end?

It should support art, but leaving roads? How are people supposed to get to the museum?

It should support art, but leaving roads? How are people supposed to get to the museum?
That's my point. Some of these goverments get carried away. The safest answer is no support at all. Then, there's no problem.

Subsidizing arts is the Pope's job ;)

Art should not be subsidized by government. It simply is not the role of the government. The role of the government is to
A. Provide for the defense of the nation (i.e. military, police)
B. Print money.
C. Conduct diplomacy around the world.
D. Build inter-state highways

Why should the government be subsidizing certain groups? Should corporations be subsidized by the government? Absolutely not... we call this corporate welfare. It is people's job, not the government's to make something of oneself.

In the US, Univs that recieve any gov't funding (which is every one of them) have to spend a certain amount per year on the arts, regardless of what kind of school they be. The end result? We have several buildings, with abtract, twisted pieces of metal out in front of them. I hate bureaucracy. :mad:

How much support should artists get from government?

I read a piece in the local paper that mentioned one of the metro counties spends more on art than it does on repairing roads. That seems a little silly. On the other hand, it seems like the easiest way to identify a government building is by the butt-ugly piece of sculpture in front of it.

It's pretty clear that most of these artists with governmental patrons just couldn't cut it. They need to have the city, state, fed, take money from some citizen and buy their work because they could never sell it. Look at this NYC thing by Cristo. What business does NYC have in spending $21 million on a bunch of orange drapes? The fact that I don't appreciate it makes my case. Isn't art supposed to be enjoyed? Too many questions, sorry.

Where should government support end?

If you do not see the point, end, and purpose of this nobily derived art, then you sir, obviously have no taste and cannot be even considered a conieusseur of fine objects d'art.

[/sarcasm]

I like the arts and I like the fact that government can support those artists that may never sell enough to earn a living, but I have to agree with you, some art is crap. My example: In the Art Garden of Washington DC, there is a piece of 'art' called 'the wall'. All it is a big piece of steel with rounded corners. I'm sure welders do that dozens of times a day. The only difference is they don't get 600,000 for doing it once.

Art should not be subsidized by government. It simply is not the role of the government. The role of the government is to
A. Provide for the defense of the nation (i.e. military, police)
B. Print money.
C. Conduct diplomacy around the world.
D. Build inter-state highways

Why should the government be subsidizing certain groups? Should corporations be subsidized by the government? Absolutely not... we call this corporate welfare. It is people's job, not the government's to make something of oneself.
I agree

If the government is allowed to subsidize certain artists, I reckon we'd eventually end up with a western equivalent of "socialist realism", where the only art produced is blatant propaganda for the government. The arts should remain a thoroughly private sector affair in my opinion.

If the government is allowed to subsidize certain artists, I reckon we'd eventually end up with a western equivalent of "socialist realism", where the only art produced is blatant propaganda for the government. The arts should remain a thoroughly private sector affair in my opinion.
Mind you, I have heard stories about artists sponsored by corporations who wanted the artists to change to suit the business.

I am an art student and I think that a happy medium between the state-subsidised and corporate-sponsored models is probably the best. To extreme in either way leads to art being crushed to suit the government or corporate agenda.

The government shouldn't be wasteing our tax money on art when they could be doing something useful. Rich people were the first and best patrons of the arts. There's no good reason I can see for the Government to get involved.

Mind you, I have heard stories about artists sponsored by corporations who wanted the artists to change to suit the business.

I am an art student and I think that a happy medium between the state-subsidised and corporate-sponsored models is probably the best. To extreme in either way leads to art being crushed to suit the government or corporate agenda.
If I commissioned an artist to provide me with a sculpture, I would expect to see and approve several stages of production. If we couldn't work out a compromise on a design issue, I'd pay him for the work done already and fire him. Use architecture as an analogy.

The government shouldn't be wasteing our tax money on art when they could be doing something useful. Rich people were the first and best patrons of the arts. There's no good reason I can see for the Government to get involved.
I agree that in many ways rich people are the best patrons of the arts. But i they are the only patrons, then general artistic creativity and variety of expression may suffer. I think there should be limited government arts programmes.

Regarding the original post, to be fair - my understanding is that the artists raised the 21 Million for the orange drapes themselves. It did not cost the taxpayers a dime, and indeed - if it draws people to the Central Park area to see it then it provides an economic boost to the benefit of the city.


BTW: Where do you draw the line at government sponsorships of "art"? I mean, we all enjoy the various funded museums, national monuments, galleries, the Smithsonian, etc. Would we prefer that all government buildings be grey concrete with no interior paint as that implies somebody had to make an artistic colour selection? Stop hiring people to paint the official Presidential Portrait to hang in the White House? Do you extend that to a refusal to allow any landscaping around government buildings?

Governments fund local fairs and exhibits to boost tourism etc, even if it just paying the traffic control cops at Hicksville's Anual Bean Festival. It is a public service that people expect their tax dollars to help out with as it goes towards the quality of community life.

So, yes there IS, I think, a place for funding of art. That being said, some of what they do makes me shake my head and I think is a waste of money. But hey - questioning specific decisions of political entities is a wonderful pastime :)

BTW: Where do you draw the line at government sponsorships of "art"? I mean, we all enjoy the various funded museums, national monuments, galleries, the Smithsonian, etc. Would we prefer that all government buildings be grey concrete with no interior paint as that implies somebody had to make an artistic colour selection? Stop hiring people to paint the official Presidential Portrait to hang in the White House?
Why are your posts so America-centric. You don't even live in the USA.

I support art museums, libraries, etc. being run by governments.

However if they put a limit (say $5000 for a local govt, and $15000 for a national government), that would be better.

AND NO MORE UGLY STATUES!!!

Why are your posts so America-centric. You don't even live in the USA.

No, but the post was from an American who singled out a current exhibit in NYC to make his case, and it was him that I was responding too. The topic was presented in and america-centric manner, so I responded accordingly.

Although the concepts of national museums and galleries is not exactly specific to the US. Nor is Hicksville's Annual <whatever> Festival. That seems to be a constant in every small town I have ever been to.


HAd I stated the hanging of the Prime Minister's portraits on Parliament Hill - which is equally on par with the Presidential portraits - would that have made you feel better? I considered it, but went with the america-centric specific response to a seeminly america-centric post.

Why are your posts so America-centric. You don't even live in the USA.

Cause he lives in place where nothing important ever happens. It seems as if every post of his has to do with the US. I think he may be angry that he lives in the country that is so impotent that it doesn't make a difference on the international scene.

Supporting the arts is crap..

A huge waste of money..

I remember King County spending $250,000 on a picture that was placed in a building that was 20 feet by 10 feet at a waste station - or garbage transfer station..

The sad part of it - They had several things coming up that money could have been used for - AKA - An off ramp to the transfer station to the highway - Which they still have not built - Because lack of money ...

Instead of being smart - Such has creating a fund or "Savings account" - We the public get taxes and money generated per year - AND all that money must be exhausted in the projects with little to NO savings.. So those things that require lots of money are often put off until some departments are closed and more taxes or bonds are formed to spend moeny on projects..

Art money is waste in King county 1% of every project must be spent on art.

In the State of Oregon 2%..

Personally I would like to see better use of money..


It makes as much sense has - Saying they have no money to keep up the parks..

YET,

Keep building parks, because they have money for NEW parks..

Just no money for maintence of parks..

lol...

Troy* :(

Regarding the original post, to be fair - my understanding is that the artists raised the 21 Million for the orange drapes themselves. It did not cost the taxpayers a dime, and indeed - if it draws people to the Central Park area to see it then it provides an economic boost to the benefit of the city....
But hey - questioning specific decisions of political entities is a wonderful pastime :)
I did try to look up how the cost was covered. Unfortunately, the NY Times had most of the stories and they require a registration to read them. What was probably not covered was the police costs to protect the "sculpture".

And you're right, making fun of Pols is certainly a great pastime. Or should that have been pols?

Cause he lives in place where nothing important ever happens. It seems as if every post of his has to do with the US. I think he may be angry that he lives in the country that is so impotent that it doesn't make a difference on the international scene.
I've been to both the USA and Canada, and I actually prefer Canada by far.

I've been to both the USA and Canada, and I actually prefer Canada by far.
That's funny. I'm sure it's true when you compare where you have been in each country. I'd rather live in Victoria, BC than in the Bronx. I'd prefer rural Georgia to Calgary because it's warmer in the winter.

What parts are you comparing?

Artists should get no support from the government at all. It's not only unconstitutional, but it's a waste of tax dollars.

Cause he lives in place where nothing important ever happens. It seems as if every post of his has to do with the US. I think he may be angry that he lives in the country that is so impotent that it doesn't make a difference on the international scene.

Considering many of the differences that America makes on the international scene, most of us Canadians are quite content to fly under the radar, eh.