Romney loses election

[giblets]

Because as a collective we have decided that certain art, which does not fare well in the market, is deserving of being supported for its greater cultural impact. Because we believe promoting fine arts, regardless of its market performance, is a good thing to do - kind of like why we may not voluntarily render our goods and services to charities to help the poor, but we're fine with the government forcing us to do so (mostly - there are people who don't like that one bit).

So let's see... we should fund it because the "collective" decided to fund it, and the collective decided to fund it because it's worth funding. Oh, and "art good, government give money to art, government do good."

[Imran Siddiqui]

So let's see... we should fund it because the "collective" decided to fund it, and the collective decided to fund it because it's worth funding. Oh, and "art good, government give money to art, government do good."

So funding something that the representatives of the country decide is worth funding is a bad thing (edited the democracy part out - thought it may have been too harsh)

I note you missed the part of culture. Supporting worthy, non-money making, art allows for people to see those things that elevate the culture of their communities and society (lot of NEA grants go to concerts as well as individual artists). If you don't agree with the concept espoused of culture, you aren't going to like it - but apparently every Western country agrees with it and I doubt its because artist lobbies are just that damned strong.

[giblets]

So funding something that the representatives of the country decide is worth funding is a bad thing (edited the democracy part out - thought it may have been too harsh)

I note you missed the part of culture. Supporting worthy, non-money making, art allows for people to see those things that elevate the culture of their communities and society (lot of NEA grants go to concerts as well as individual artists). If you don't agree with the concept espoused of culture, you aren't going to like it - but apparently every Western country agrees with it and I doubt its because artist lobbies are just that damned strong.

The representatives are not infallible and are perfectly capable of wasting money. It's kinda silly to say "well Congress voted for it, therefore it's worth spending money on" unless you think everything in the government budget is a good use of funds.

Concerts- what's wrong with having pay for tickets and funding them that way? Lots of concerts are funded that way. The idea that having the government pick and choose certain types of concerts to subsidize to "elevate" culture is an elitist notion that holds the general public in contempt.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I agree, but with reservations.

I do not doubt the ability of governments to find a way for art funding to contribute to real problems in the world. The only reason they don't do so on any large scale is probably because funding for art is so minuscule. Let's take a look at some of the US Government's (purported) excesses, and how funding art could have achieved somewhat similar (and occasionally greater) losses:

Star Wars <-> Space based insanely powerful laser light show that can instantly respond to music played in any local. The USSR would steal this technology, implement it, and begin a laser light show race that would culminate in both nations incinerating city blocks whenever someone forgot themselves and played Saturday Night Fever on their boom box.

Iraq War <-> A trillion dollars worth of giant sculptures of Mohammed having sex with household objects leading to wars with incensed Muslim nations

Obamacare <-> Magnetized, rocket-propelled conglomerations of industrial and medical waste materials released randomly in urban environments to raise awareness of the dangers of industrial and medical waste

Corporate Bailouts <-> Funding a gigantic LCD screen in geosynchronous orbit which is visible nationwide, and shows a loop of random cartoon sex acts performed by Mohammed in GM Vehicles

Farm Subsidies <-> 3 full years of grain harvests purchased, piled in the shape of Mohammed having sex with a Samson (General Motors brand) tractor, and burned as a tribute to remind us of the plight of the malnourished world-wide

War on Drugs <-> World's largest pile of narcotics, piled in the shape of Mohammed smoking a joint, leading to junkies forming militias which fight amongst each other to gain control the pile of narcotics while simultaneously protecting it from Islamist terrorists who want to blow it up

Excellent ideas, all. You should run for Congress!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The representatives are not infallible and are perfectly capable of wasting money. It's kinda silly to say "well Congress voted for it, therefore it's worth spending money on" unless you think everything in the government budget is a good use of funds.

Only in response to a "why can't the free market do it" point. A response that says we've decided to elevate some things we consider valuable that the free market doesn't value is a perfectly valid retort.

And, once again, my original response had a reason - the reps believe in elevating the culture of the society.

Concerts- what's wrong with having pay for tickets and funding them that way? Lots of concerts are funded that way. The idea that having the government pick and choose certain types of concerts to subsidize to "elevate" culture is an elitist notion that holds the general public in contempt.

No one on this site has ever held the cultural choices of the general public in contempt .

We all believe that there are some cultural experiences which are on a higher plane than others. The vast majority of elected representatives wish to help fund those cultural experiences we generally place upon the highest plane because they believe that regardless of the market, it should be funded so that those cultural experiences continue to enrich the lives of the people in the country/state/locality (I mean do you really think your local art museums - with the exception of a distinct few - are profitable without governmental help).

[giblets]

If you believe some cultural experiences are on a higher plane, you are free to spend you time and money at museums and spend money on what you consider "fine art" rather than the dreck the unwashed masses prefer. There is no need for the government to tell people what they should like and take their money from them to subsidize it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you believe some cultural experiences are on a higher plane, you are free to spend you time and money at museums and spend money on what you consider "fine art" rather than the dreck the unwashed masses prefer. There is no need for the government to tell people what they should like and take their money from them to subsidize it.

Obviously we disagree. Thankfully more people take my view and thus the government takes a role in funding the arts.

I think, though, it is telling that when we look back at the great cultures in past, we tend to focus the most on their historical story and their art. The art is as much a part of their legacy as the stories of war and kings. And, of course, the art we look at isn't necessarily the art of the 'people' but the fine art that is produced by a culture.

[giblets]

Do you really want future generations to remember us for Piss Christ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you really want future generations to remember us for Piss Christ?

We had a thread on it where I posted its actual intent by the artist. I can't think of many things better as a commentary on what we've done to the Christian faith.

[giblets]

So you want to be remembered for being a lousy Christian? Not that anyone in the future will care since Christianity will die out.

[regexcellent]

That's a pretty distant future you're talking about, gribbler. And I don't think it's even true at all.

[DaShi]

If it's not true, then its distance is irrelevant. Or did your indignation want to cover all your bases?

[Imran Siddiqui]

gribbler wants to be remembered for knee jerkism. Unfortunately that'll last forever.