Sunday, June 19, 2005
Funding The Arts
Should the government fund arts programs, museums, and similar programs? And of course, why?
No...depending on what, exactly, The CO meant by the question.
In terms of school curricula, yes. If we are going to fund public education (which I'm not convinced we should) then we should provide a complete education that includes the arts, sciences and 'everything else'. However, if the question was addressed to non-academic arts only (e.g., museums and such) then no, I do not think that the government should be funding them.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, consider this. While some attempt to define objective criteria for judging the quality/significance of art, the very nature of artistic expression makes it necessarily highly subjective. So, in deciding which art is 'good' and which is 'not good' someone must make a value judgment. While I, of course, fully support individuals making such decisions with their own money, I sure as you-know-what do not condone some government bureaucratic making a value judgment with my money.
This is yet another example of a position I will defend to the bitter end because I think that the discourse of what is within our government's power needs to be recalibrated. Take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America and show me where it grants the government the power to take money from one person and give it to another. (Hint: If you're not up for wasting your time you can take my word...there is no such power enumerated in the Constitution).
I will end with a final question for you to ponder: If the government stopped funding art, museums, etc., do you believe that we would not have museums?
---
The CO's response.
No...depending on what, exactly, The CO meant by the question.
In terms of school curricula, yes. If we are going to fund public education (which I'm not convinced we should) then we should provide a complete education that includes the arts, sciences and 'everything else'. However, if the question was addressed to non-academic arts only (e.g., museums and such) then no, I do not think that the government should be funding them.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, consider this. While some attempt to define objective criteria for judging the quality/significance of art, the very nature of artistic expression makes it necessarily highly subjective. So, in deciding which art is 'good' and which is 'not good' someone must make a value judgment. While I, of course, fully support individuals making such decisions with their own money, I sure as you-know-what do not condone some government bureaucratic making a value judgment with my money.
This is yet another example of a position I will defend to the bitter end because I think that the discourse of what is within our government's power needs to be recalibrated. Take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America and show me where it grants the government the power to take money from one person and give it to another. (Hint: If you're not up for wasting your time you can take my word...there is no such power enumerated in the Constitution).
I will end with a final question for you to ponder: If the government stopped funding art, museums, etc., do you believe that we would not have museums?
---
The CO's response.
