BF2S Forums Government support of artists

Through junior high, absolutely. After that, maybe not so much.

No, because it would stifle true creativity. If an artist truly wants to do what they do, they will find a way to do it. Yeah I know Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime, but he still kept painting.

As art pretty much doesn't define society any more, I don't see how that argument for government funding applies.

The only government subsidy of art should be in the context of paying an artist for a particular government project. So they are being paid for services rendered, not just so they can keep being artists.

They should provided the artist actually works. There was a case here in Norway a couple weeks ago where the authorities found out that they were/had been subsidizing an artist for the past 20 years and she hadn't made one single film or work of art. Bitch.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

They should provided the artist actually works. There was a case here in Norway a couple weeks ago where the authorities found out that they were/had been subsidizing an artist for the past 20 years and she hadn't made one single film or work of art. Bitch.

How do you know he isn't 'living art'?

lol

Don't ask me, ask the government who took her support her away

If the government just gave away money to artists, then yes.

If the government got to control what art was created, then no.

no, if people want to see/buy art, they should pay the market price for it.

art is overrated, look at south park

shitty art, terrible graphics

insanely awesome fucking tv show though

ok, ok, i fucked up, South Park is art (music/comedy)

oh and no

our local town decided to appropriate funds to a "modern" sculpture in one of our plazas

the result

a heinous metal thing in the middle of an intersection, and the exclamation.. "WE PAID HOW MUCH????"

The statue cost $80,000, and was purchased by the city of Waterville Govt. im looking for a picture and cant find one. Maybe ill have to take one

Last edited by Locoloki (2008-03-19 08:35:02)

honestly, most people are pretty ignorant to the subject of art on these forums. Art is perceived by most as painting and other fine-art type crafts. Thankfully this is not the case. Every single product you touch every day has been designed by a team of artists and engineers working side by side, this includes every package as well.

Now I do understand that opinion that Art doesn't matter to society as much as other things, but simply look back to any ancient culture. What remained is the art, Roman buildings and sculptures, mayan temples, the sphynx, and many others. It is by the Artwork of ancient cultures that we have learned much of what we have about them, and this equally as important to us as it is to them. Some may argue that these relics only exist because of engineering feats, and this is in-part true. I think perhaps that before any posters pass judgment, perhaps it would be beneficial to actually research the history of art and it's effect on society. Especially the younger posters, who in many cases have not studied artistic history or it's correlation with society.

As far as governmental funding of the arts, I believe this is a good thing if the specific artist, and reason behind any funding is within reason. A public works project such as Mount Rushmore is a good allocation of funds to employ workers to boost the economy and national pride.

Fortunately enough I am an artist, yet my field rides a strange line between engineering, marketing, and art. I do not paint or make sculptures for my job, my works are intended for mass production. I do believe that less and less government funding for artistic programs in public schools especially has been nothing less than abysmal. My high school had zero art budget, and with ever more after-school programs being cut it will not be long before the moral of students as a whole begins to suffer greatly. One cannot expect schools to pump out scientists and engineers only.