sort by best latest
I know many artists, myself included, who paint and draw for the sake of art, not commerce.
Sure. But the artists who paint and draw for the sake of art rather than to make a living probably aren't receiving public funding. So you're really not relevant to the question.
Yes I am relevent to the question and so are all other artists who follow these ends for the sake of art. I have belonged to many art socities - writing, painting, photography. All had financial aid from the public purse.
On what level of government? Who decides what is art and what gets funded?
The level of the government is really not relvent. In the UK, the national government supports the arts, as does local government. Do we need silly little beaurocrats strutting around legislating what art is?
MickS, I agree that no level of government should be involved in funding the arts.
Good points, Scott; however, in tough times art funding should be at the top of the list for cut-backs just as those of us struggling to make ends meet have to cut back on vacations costs and entertainment.
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments
Russ Moran says
Define limited. What level of Government? What art gets these redistributed funds?
Mitch, I should have emphasized "local govt" in my comment. Economic studies have shown that support by local govt is financially sound. I hate to pimp a hub in an answer, but I covered this in a hub. http://bit.ly/WFWpD6 .PS, I'm a conservative.
Local taxes used for the local arts with a specific vote by the people to do so, that I would consent...but only with the consent of the people.
What help do you see to the local community? (not saying there isn't, just interested in your take.)
from my hub on the subject: In a report titled "Arts, Culture and Economic Prosperity in Greater Philadelphia," the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance noted that arts and cultural organizations in Philadelphia and four nearby suburban counties ge
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Catherine Tally says
Marie Flint says
Silver Poet says
Mitch Alan says
If you don't like the government spending money on public goods, you're more than welcome to leave the country and go someplace where the free market rules all. China, perhaps? Maybe Somalia?
I don't want the Federal government involved in areas it is not Constitutionally charged with. And, the arts are one of many things it is not granted the power to regulate or confiscate funds to redistribute to...but, thanks for the childish answer.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Ben Zoltak says
There is a Constitutional power for the funding & keeping of a military. There's No such power given to the federal government to confiscate money to redistribute to someone for purposes of funding artistic endeavors.
Confiscated funds? You make Government sound like an entity unto itself. So, then, big business should fund everything then? That sounds like a wonderful idea.
So, we as citizens are free to not pay into the federal government coffers? It's not confiscated? Define big business...and yes, arts should not be artificially held up by tax dollars. If there is quality, it will survive just fine.
Taxation is not confiscation because you don't own money. Money is the property of the country, not the individual. We just hold on to it between transactions. The government has the constitutional right to tax income and spend it for the public good
Money is a tangible asset representing the valve earned for goods & services at an agreed upon rate. You trade $ for work. The $ is yours. Taxes are confiscatory, they are taken whether you want to pay on not. Define, Constitutionally, "public go
Hmm, yes, let's just everyone of us not pay taxes. That sounds like a wonderful idea. Who needs an infrastructure? Confiscated funds; that sounds so Conservative.
We were discussing the arts, not infrastructure, correct? are federal taxes voluntary or confiscatory?
Okay. So, an apple is not an orange. Aren't they both edible?
Trouble answer direct questions?
Trouble answering in correct grammar?
A typo is more forgiveable than rudeness.
So, then you are in a position to pass judgement on me are you? Would you mind telling me what gives you that right?
And still no answer, I see...but, he does play the victim role well. Oh well, I tried to debate on the issues, but they are difficult for some to articulate. Maybe another time.
You are fun to toy with, but, no sense of humor either, I see. Who is this third person we are talking to, by the way?
Ha! I've got a great sense of humor...I find it quite humorous that you can say so much without saying anything of substances or answering a simple question. It is the oft used tactic of the left, so I'm used to it.
Ya. I am actually smack dab in the Center. You know, Center? Are you aware of a place called Center? I'm thinking possibly not. I have friends on both sides and I find their Dogma restricting at very best.
- See all 16 commentsHide extra comments
That explains why art is useful, enjoyable and valuable. It does not address the issue of whether confiscated funds should be used to fund it. That is the question.