Should arts be funded?

I read nathan-sith's post in the Tsunami Donation thread, and rather than take that thread off topic, I've started a new one.

He claims that the "B of the Bang" sculpture is a "mismanagement" of funds

I couldn't disagree more.

Art and culture is a large part of what defines humanity. As sentient beings, creativity is central to what we are. It what sets us as the superior race on earth.

Yes, there are problems in this country that needs sorting. That's why we need budgets for all areas. But Art still needs funding in whatever form.

 

It's a fine line between funding creativeness and peoples welfare and there's always going to be arguments from both sides that they aren't getting enough money.

However if we stopped funding say... wars forinstance there would be enough money to fund the arts and things like hospitals and schools in a reasonable manner.

Yes arts should be funded but it should be taken into account that people are going to abuse this and certainly of late there have been some monsterous state funded arts people around who seem to have little or no talent.

Certainly money needs to be looked at in this country and a huge rethink of where Mr Blair is sending all our hard earned money...

 

If art was of any use or consequence then it would be entirely self funding. The bottom line is that it is of very little value and hence has to be funded by the Government.

Meanwhile we've got hospitals with no beds, and 1 in 10 people leaving school without qualifications.

What makes us human, and the superior race is indeed our creativity, but that can just as easily be defined as our ability to use tools to produce machines. (certain other high intelligence animals use tools).

If you want to pursue art to some extent then that's great, but why should the tax payer be forced to support it ? The vast majority of art (or "the arts") are entirely subjective, and, for want of a better word, crap.

 

If art was of any use or consequence then it would be entirely self funding. The bottom line is that it is of very little value and hence has to be funded by the Government.

A very flawed argument. Swap the word "art" for "hospitals" and you'll see what I mean. hospitals have use, yet they are not self-funding. Hospitals have value, and yet are funded by the Government

Meanwhile we've got hospitals with no beds, and 1 in 10 people leaving school without qualifications.

I'll grant you the first one, but not the second. A lot of young people today just couldn't give a damn. Hardly a funding problem.

What makes us human, and the superior race is indeed our creativity, but that can just as easily be defined as our ability to use tools to produce machines. (certain other high intelligence animals use tools).

Yes they may use tools, but for survival purposes. Similar to hospitals

Can they create music for pleasure?

If you want to pursue art to some extent then that's great, but why should the tax payer be forced to support it?

Why should people with private healthcare have to support the NHS? Because that's life.

The vast majority of art (or "the arts") are entirely subjective, and, for want of a better word, crap.

Ah, you lose credibility here. Subjective and crap? Hardly a reasoned argument. Yes, art is subjective. Of course it is. That's part of it's purpose. Do I like the B of the Bang? Not particularly. But I support the artist's right to create

 

The vast majority of art (or "the arts") are entirely subjective, and, for want of a better word, crap.

I agree with you to some extent there but there are a few artists who deserve to have the recognition and funding to persue what they are good at.

We can entirely do without the likes of Damien Hurst et al... that kind of stuff isn't art imho but then the next person wouldn't think the fantasy art I like isn't worth the canvas it's painted on.

The world would be a far more dull place without art and artists

 

Exactly. Let's not bicker about what we consider art, and what we personally like or dislike, because that's not really what this thread is about

 

I didn't make my point clear about that. What I'm saying is there's no way to measure "art" (in a way I'd be happy with), so you are funding something that you can't assess.

In my opinion you have to decide what is needed versus what not needed.

We *need* eductation, healthcare, defensive, public transport, and the emergency services.

We don't *need* paintings, music or scuplture.

We also don't need movies or sports, however those two (particularly sport) is self funding. Infact, football makes billions of pounds on a yearly basis.

 

Should arts be funded?

If wars can be funded, I don't see why not.

The NZ Government strongly supports art, the PM herself is even the Minister for Culture and Heritage.

They've seen a massive boom in the arts in recent years, fashion, art, music and especially cinema (where certain high profile movies have pumped millions of $$$ into the local economy, not to mention the international esteem).

So that's all I have to say...

 

Technically, we don't "need" public transport. It's a convenience. We survived for centuries without it.

In fact, art is probably the longest standing human creation out of everything mentioned here.

And let's not forget, there is a HUGE self-funding art culture in this country. Damian Hirst, and Tracey whatserface are examples of that.

What is causing "controversy" is public art. Sculpture created for free public viewing.

We don't "need" libraries, but they are funded by the taxpayer with virtually no bad press.

Why should something that is uniquely human be limited to those who can afford it?

 

Libraries make a little money from fees and sales. However, libraries are education, and fit into the education umbrella.

I agree with your point that art is the longest standing human achievement - as far back as cave paintings. (Although I'm not sure if tools - spears, knives - predate cave paintings or not).

To be honest I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this. Without leisure activities we'd all be robots, but I suppose I find it hard to justify the money invested in someone who produces a tent with your ex-lover's names on it, or an unmade bed.

 

Agreed, but that's not publically funded. She may have had a grant or whatever, but as soon as she sells whatever, that gets paid back.

 

The arts should receive state funding but one of the biggest problem is that people in this country do not give to the arts on anything like the scale that they used to. Very few people donate works of art to the nation anymore, choosing to sell them to highest bidder instead and thus a lot of art ends up abroad.

 

As far as I'm concerned art and by extension "the arts" is the non-scientific branch of knowledge so yes, arts should be funded!

 

I think we are missing the real question here:-

Should farts be funded?

 

I'm torn, because I think art should be funded...But then, I'm also falling under the "What do you consider art?" banner. For me, film is art, and should be funded...In fact, I think more money should go into it to help develop the talent we have here, but cannot get the recognition that some people are due for.

The kind of art, such as that case of an unmade bed, is not art, it's just ****, and should not be funded...In fact, whoever did that **** should not only not get funding, he/she should be shot for it. And unmade bed is not art, that's just being lazy; and if that's the case, I'm master artist.

 

^ Just for clarification, film is not the only form I consider to be art; I just used it as an example...

 

to put my post in the tsunami appeal thread in to a more relevant context:- the B in the Bang is to commemorate the 2002 commonwealth games held in manchester, personally i like it, looks great (not to mention the 7' spike that's already fallen off), its been erected in a 'regeneration' area where nothing regenerative has been done but for the erection of the B in the Bang. my argument would be, first, spend the money on regenerating the area-the design isnt going anywhere- then when its all spangly & sweet, put up the sculpt.

civic art in general annoys me anyway, there's loads of it around the black country that doesn't fit with the landscape (except for a pair of iron horses next to one of the A roads) and means nothing to the public its supposed to be there for,local councils approach someONE and ask for thier take because some commitee decided there shoult be some 'art' there, art for arts sake if you like.

i've no problem with the arts being funded, it's important for many people. But however much money goes to it-it will no doubt be mismanaged.

incidently, the designer of the B in the Bang has a commission to design and construct a bridge made entirely of glass for erection in central london- ooooh


as for the rest of that post-i do stick to my guns on the likes of the millennium dome and wembly.

 

The mismanagement of money for the arts is the biggest problem and gives arts funding a bad rep.