|What do you think about public funding for the arts?
Art represents the culture. Archaeologists use art as the defining force of past societies. If a society has no public art, it mirrors its lack of significance and being.
You may surmise the rest of my answer.
Art needs to be part of living, I think that is why we create art to help us see the beauty in all things
Absolutely. Art is life, we need support...
It is good because it makes art accessible to the masses. It is a must in developed countries. It is a luxury in underdeveloped countries.
Man works first to live (or to survive). Only after that, Man works to live well. Only after that, Man works to outlive his time in the memory of other men (that is when he makes art). Starving people cannot make art and cannot appreciate art, even if public funding makes art accessible to the masses. So Governments in poor countries must fund first the hunger, secondly the well being of their countrymen. Only after that comes funding the arts there.
That is not the case in rich countries. The people already are living well. Let them have art available.
I do not know. On one hand, I am not sure whether government’s role is to support culture, reflect it, or lead it. On another, public spaces are most often owned by government. If we want visual arts in our public spaces, for example, it is almost necessary for the government to become a client. I do believe that large artworks should not be donated by artists (unless they can afford it and it is wanted by that audience).
But when it comes to education, I am constantly appalled that art is not available to children. Do not get me started on wanting children to have full, well-rounded, healthy lives!
oh! we need more support.
There should be much more of it. The arts are not a zero sum game. Public funding for the arts enriches the lives of everyone who lives in an area where it results in public art, exhibitions and activities.
The arts should become a larger part of the economy overall. The way things are now, a very few famous artists in many areas wind up being the producers and most people are discouraged from learning, but if this decentralized and people bought from local artists, you have a boost to the economy that comes from people learning, growing and thinking -- making value without using much in the way of physical resources compared to things like manufacturing.
Lose the nappies. Stand on your own feet. Aren't we ashamed to take money from other people's pay packets?
Doesn't really work. Who decides? Who benefits? Based on what criteria? All too subjective.
I think well
I think it is necessary.
It's something very necessary. In art there's no place for discrimination.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>