Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
It is, and pretty much always has been, so your 'should' is basically just rewriting reality to make it more convenient for your politics.

No, had I said, "And you're taking it as a given that government is in that game. It isn't," that would be rewriting reality.

But there's also plenty of places where art doesn't survive without government support, and while I know you're certain to answer 'if people aren't going to buy enough tickets for it to survive let it die then'... externalities matter. Art can bring neighbourhoods to life, bringing value and business to nearby businesses.

Which is why you find businesses and individuals willing to invest in artistic non-profits, and why the government could indeed safely get out of the business of funding it.

And the culture and commentary art can deliver has a far greater benefit to the community than just the entertainment of the guy who bought the ticket.

I'm not downplaying the importance of art. Quite the opposite. I think it should be free to operate without constraint, and I think that's fundamentally impossible when the government's footing the bill, because there's always going to be a level of oversight. Art shouldn't be a political football. Just as you have individuals upset that this particular piece of satire isn't getting government backing, you'd have those selfsame people getting upset if some other work with overtly Christian themes did. There'd be arguments about the separation of church and state and all the usual bs, just as there are arguments that the government shouldn't be funding people making drawings of their dogs with their dogs' own feces or whatever the outrage du jour is.

The government shouldn't be making those calls, because, like it or not, it's censorship. It also cannot be in a position to throw out as much money as is asked for without paying attention to where it goes. Therefore, it should just get out.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm not downplaying the importance of art. Quite the opposite. I think it should be free to operate without constraint, and I think that's fundamentally impossible when the government's footing the bill, because there's always going to be a level of oversight.

Regardless of who commissions a piece, be it the government or a private investor, you could always argue that someone will have a level of oversight on the project.

 sebster wrote:
I mean, government can, if it wants, say that they will support local art as long as that art is all nice stories with no contraversy but, well, that's a bit pointless, basically.

Nonsense. Art doesn't need to piss people off to be effective - aesthetically pleasing art is worth making for its own sake. Making the cities under their stewardship nicer places to live is a valid function of government; spending your money to make fun of your beliefs is not.

"Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable." (Banksy)

I think Seaward makes some good points, actually, though I agree with AlexHolker that there are reasons why governments should sponsor art for the beautifying of public spaces. There is also the question of the sort of censorship that arises from big companies like Walmart influencing a lot of artistic expression.

It is an attack. I agree tax money should not be used to support this.

Tax money isn't being used to support it.

Then who cares? I don't have to see it if I don't want to, and it doesn't sound funny actually.

 Seaward wrote:
No, had I said, "And you're taking it as a given that government is in that game. It isn't," that would be rewriting reality.

Nope, because your 'should' does just the same thing. In effect you're basically just sidestepping the reality that government has always played a role in the arts, and no matter what you happen to think should be the case in your own private political utopia, government will always play a role in the arts.

And so you can play a role in discussing exactly how that involvement should operate, or you can just state what things should be in your own utopia, and basically remove yourself from the real world question.

Which is why you find businesses and individuals willing to invest in artistic non-profits, and why the government could indeed safely get out of the business of funding it.

Which is why you find businesses and individuals willing to invest in some artistic non-profits, and why the government could indeed safely get out of the business of funding some of it.

I'm not downplaying the importance of art. Quite the opposite. I think it should be free to operate without constraint, and I think that's fundamentally impossible when the government's footing the bill, because there's always going to be a level of oversight.

It's also fundamentally impossible for art to operate freely when dependant on patrons or even on ticket sales. That's why you need a diversity of funding sources, and why those funding sources need to have substantial discussions about how and why it really wants to fund new art projects.