Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffwhit
Just so you know, there, in all of western civilization, has never been a time when the arts weren't directly funded by some form of government. So, one might wonder what the state of the arts would be without some direct government funding.
In Canada arts organizations can't even offer the tax incentives that their American counterparts enjoy in order to attract donors.
In reality does it matter if the government contribution to the arts come in the form of tax credits or direct funding, especially since the direct funding model almost is always far less of a burden on the government coffers once the accounting is done? I understand, ideologically there is a substantial difference, but when does ideology ever have anything to do with reality?
|
Tax incentives 100%. I am all for that. I have no problem with offering tax breaks for the arts. I am also big on funding music and art programs in school. I am very supportive of reducing regulatory and tax burdens on the arts. But never direct funding.
Here is the difference between tax breaks and direct funding. Direct funding implies a judgement. We will fund the symphony, but not the break dancers performing in the street. Ballet gets funding, but not a graffiti artist. What about video games? Bad Hollywood movies? When we directly fund art, we imply that one is worthy of funding and the other is not. Who is to say that the thousands of people watching monster truck events are any less worthy of subsidy than those attending the opera? Both are watching a performance. Should Rammstein get a subsidy when they go on tour? It is an old aristocratic idea of "high art" and "low art" and I want no part of it.
I might be pulling this out of my ass, but most funding for the arts in previous centuries came from wealthy aristocrats or the church who would pay composers/musicians/etc to do their work (Beethoven for one IIRC). The government didn't pay for it out of tax revenue (some governments did sometimes).
Look, if people think arts are important, they should go pay the proper price to see them.
EDIT- Oh, just one last thing- I am totally in support of public art. The difference is that it is non-exclusionary.