Government Support Arts: Good or Bad?
A museum director in Italy was setting fire to his art collection in the hope that politicians would take notice. Funding for the arts from government is declining. From the magazine called The Economist, they set a debate about whether the government should support arts. Some people insist the government should support the arts. However, other people stand on the opposite side. According to the people who think government should support art, they consider there might be many reasons why we should support arts. One idea is that culture makes us a better society; federal support is needed to prevent our decline into culture barbarism. Another idea is that the free market fails to provide outlets for the higher forms of arts. A third idea is that the United States has been deficient because of lagging behind European governments that support the arts as a matter of course. There is also the myth of the starving. If we neglect to support the arts, we will be condemning another Van Gogh or Mozart to a wretched existence. It is also generally recognized that many highly talented artists lack commercial aptitude, and this leads to an argument that the public has a responsibility to support them. From an article, written by Andy Shallalan, published in an arts magazine named Bourgeon, it said that "Arts and culture are the soul of any community. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like without the arts. Arts and culture are the engines that drive business. Without the arts, businesses cannot thrive, neighborhoods decline and our quality of life is greatly diminished". There are many real examples we can found in several governments. From the National Assembly of State Arts Agency, the U.S. government set funds to support arts. The U.S. government support for art museum and other forms of arts. The government provided lower taxes on the art products to support arts. The BC government also claimed that supporting arts would benefit their country, so they made policies to support arts. On the other side, some people think the government should control the arts. The artists who have expectations of support without controls do not really understand the basic nature of government as the organized force. Any government, whether communist or democratic, represents political and coercive forces. All the resources and powers of the government tend to be deployed to serve the interests of the political group in control and also to deal with things that threaten the very survival of the state. This is as true of the United States as it is of the Soviet Union. Either type of government must establish bureaus and procedures for any of its activities, whether it’s running the army or supporting artists. Any decision to make something a government activity is also a decision to place it under bureaucratic management with various controls and reporting methods for measurement of results. In a short video named Should Government Support the Arts, Leon Botstein explain the reason why US Government do not support the art is that we cannot agree what would be art. He said that "why should we subsidize opera companies, museums, artists, performance spaces, independent filmmakers and photographers? One way to solve that problem would be to say well as in science they can be kind of peer review, an object sense of what is good, what is bad and if we could discriminate, if we could agree then we could say well these people deserve support, these people don't". A website named View on Canadian Art raise a question which is "Does government support mean better art?” And then their answer to the question is "Not necessarily". They think the most important for artists is create, not the fund from government. Most of the artists hope the fund is hope to be famous and is for ego or adulation. What's more, Petr Mach wrote also wrote an article to insist that the government should not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document