tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post3212488920686808095..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: Public Funding of the Artsamolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-44376662890937254872017-02-08T02:37:34.968-08:002017-02-08T02:37:34.968-08:00What if we just called it "Public funding for...What if we just called it "Public funding for entertainment and adornment"? <br /><br />Entertainment and adornment are good. I understand that everybody, regardless of their social and/or economic status find value in such distractions from the monotony of daily life. <br /><br />Let's compare it to a bridge across the Ohio....Oh! On second thought, even though both art and the bridge present a social benefit, there is really not a good comparison there. Maybe a better comparison would be public funding of art and public funding of diversity in society. <br /><br />In my view, the problems with public funding of art is the fact that, in the final analysis, it is little more than public funding of an ongoing dispute of what Art is, and how/why it should be appreciated: "This is art, children. It has value. Those in denial, i.e. those who oppose opening their wallets to support it without question, are cruel, selfish, bigots who wish to undermine the progress of society."<br /><br />Public funding of art is better presented as public funding of art jobs. In America, I think that is already being nicely handled through colleges and public funding of college loans.<br /><br />Throwing something into the government and hoping it retains its purity of purpose is like throwing something into the ocean and hoping it does not get wet. <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-58631925591820332432017-01-23T10:44:06.686-08:002017-01-23T10:44:06.686-08:00The main problem I see with public funding of the ...The main problem I see with public funding of the arts is The Golden Rule.<br /><br />As in, <i>he who has the gold, makes the rules.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, artists are no more immune to being "bought" than any other group of people.<br /><br />As such, the type of art that usually gets public funding is the type of art that its funders want to see made. And this is often <i>not</i> the type of art that best serves the public purposes you've outlined.<br /><br />While some publicly funded art <i>is</i> edgy as well as intellectually and aesthetically challenging, an awful lot of it ends up being watered-down and purely decorative. While usually nice to look at, this type of art doesn't offer the viewer -- or society as a whole -- very much benefit beyond a pleasant appearance.<br /><br />And worse, because of its fundamental nature -- it's <i>public</i> art, not private art -- this generic and frequently bland art often ends up being the type of art that most people see most of the time.<br /><br />In fact, over time, for many people, it comes to define for them what "art" is and is not.<br /><br />In the long run, I think the public's exposure to most publicly funded art creates perceptions about art generally that ultimately serve to diminish, in the public's mind, the value of <i>all</i> art, be it public or private.<br /><br />So while the graft and waste that's inherent to our system of government concerns me, as a self-funded photographer whose photos are very rarely of the purely decorative type, the potential for public funding of art to close people's minds to art of a more challenging nature -- such as my photos?! -- concerns me even more.JGhttp://audiidudii.aminus3.com/noreply@blogger.com