PM Series: Question 10

[RR1997]

The right to individual autonomy is important, even if it threatens collective security: Usually Agree

The government should penalize organizations that practice outsourcing: Agree (critical issue)

Giving faith-based charities the same government resources as secular organizations is a good idea: Disagree (not critical)

We should increase foreign aid to countries struggling with poverty: Agree (not critical)

We should increase funding for education: Agree (critical issue)

Heterosexual couples should receive higher marital recognition than same-sex couples: Disagree (critical issue)

Overall, free trade hurts more than it helps: Disagree (critical issue)

We should reduce the number of government programs substantially: Disagree (critical issue)

Abortion should be illegal or very heavily restricted: Disagree (critical issue)

The government should fund museums, theaters, and other cultural institutions that are unable to survive independently: ?

My opinion:
Disagree (not a crit. issue)

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Agree (Critical)

[H. Ross Peron]

Agree, Not Critical

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This is one where I know I break from the conservatives on this forum, and maybe even from the forum at large.

Agree. Not a critical issue.

I mean, I went to an arts school for grades nine to 12. Chalk it up to that.

[Miles]

Agree, Not Critical

[Deus Naturae]

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

[Gass3268]

Agree, not critical

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Agree, Not Critical

[Goldwater]

Disagree.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

Really? I'd think it'd be the opposite - shouldn't the arts and culture be free from the Social Darwinist fangs of market capitalism?

[ElectionsGuy]

Disagree/Critical.

[Deus Naturae]

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

Really? I'd think it'd be the opposite - shouldn't the arts and culture be free from the Social Darwinist fangs of market capitalism?

What does social darwinism have to do with art? I'd prefer that culture and expression result from the organic development of society rather than the arbitrary dictates of government bureaucrats.

[traininthedistance]

Agree, critical.  

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

Because "the market" is so good at properly valuing arts and culture.  Seriously, this is probably the one field of human endeavor (well, second-most after protecting the natural environment for future generations) where a purely market-based framework runs aground hardest.

[Deus Naturae]

Agree, critical.  

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

Because "the market" is so good at properly valuing arts and culture.  Seriously, this is probably the one field of human endeavor (well, second-most after protecting the natural environment for future generations) where a purely market-based framework runs aground hardest.

There really is no objective criteria for evaluating works of art. Everyone has their own values, preferences, etc. Perhaps your view that a free market produces poor quality artwork stems from the fact that your own preferences and values might not very prominent in such an environment?

[Flake]

Agree, Not Critical

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Agree (Critical)

[traininthedistance]

There really is no objective criteria for evaluating works of art. Everyone has their own values, preferences, etc. Perhaps your view that a free market produces poor quality artwork stems from the fact that your own preferences and values might not very prominent in such an environment?

Just because taste has a subjective component doesn't mean all art is "equal"; that there is no such thing as experience and expertise.  I reject that false dichotomy completely.  And of course I reject the approach that tries to define out of existence any value that can't be easily captured in monetary terms. I.e. the tautology of "the market is correct because I define correctness in terms of what 'the market' spits out"- which is exactly what any attempt to handwave away the cultural, educational, and aesthetic benefits of non-commercial art tries to do.

Besides, the problems with a "free market" approach to art (however constructed) are far deeper, and wide-ranging, than kvetching that new stuff isn't to one's taste.  That's ultimately a red herring.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Usually agree to neutral, definitely not critical.

[Deus Naturae]

Just because taste has a subjective component doesn't mean all art is "equal"; that there is no such thing as experience and expertise.  I reject that false dichotomy completely.  And of course I reject the approach that tries to define out of existence any value that can't be easily captured in monetary terms. I.e. the tautology of "the market is correct because I define correctness in terms of what 'the market' spits out"- which is exactly what any attempt to handwave away the cultural, educational, and aesthetic benefits of non-commercial art tries to do.

Besides, the problems with a "free market" approach to art (however constructed) are far deeper, and wide-ranging, than kvetching that new stuff isn't to one's taste.  That's ultimately a red herring.

I never said all art is equal...of course I don't believe that. My point is that every person has their own preferences and values. It's those kinds of disagreements and differences that make society exciting. That's why we have such diversity of art, music, etc. For some cultural commission to decide what people should like based on their own preferences and try to promote that is unjust and borderline dangerous. Who should decide what artwork is worthy of promotion by the state? You?

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Disagree/Critical.

[traininthedistance]

Just because taste has a subjective component doesn't mean all art is "equal"; that there is no such thing as experience and expertise.  I reject that false dichotomy completely.  And of course I reject the approach that tries to define out of existence any value that can't be easily captured in monetary terms. I.e. the tautology of "the market is correct because I define correctness in terms of what 'the market' spits out"- which is exactly what any attempt to handwave away the cultural, educational, and aesthetic benefits of non-commercial art tries to do.

Besides, the problems with a "free market" approach to art (however constructed) are far deeper, and wide-ranging, than kvetching that new stuff isn't to one's taste.  That's ultimately a red herring.

I never said all art is equal...of course I don't believe that. My point is that every person has their own preferences and values. It's those kinds of disagreements and differences that make society exciting. That's why we have such diversity of art, music, etc. For some cultural commission to decide what people should like based on their own preferences and try to promote that is unjust and borderline dangerous. Who should decide what artwork is worthy of promotion by the state? You?

We wouldn't have that diversity of art, music, etc. without substantial government funding.  The real issue here is not "which art?" (short answer: as much of it as practical) but "how much?", i.e. "how accessible to people who can't plunk down $5 mil for a Picasso at auction or commission their own songs?" and "how do artists afford to put food in their mouths, so that talented people have the means and incentive to spend their time making art, rather than just go become quants or waiters or whatever?"  

And, just to counter strawman with strawman, is a "cultural commission*" really any worse than available art being based on the whims and idiosyncratic tastes/agendas of whatever rich person decides to munificently bestow his largesse to create (or make available to the masses) art?  'Cause that's how it's worked in the past.  At least the cultural commission can, if you put in the effort, be made accountable to audiences, scholars, and voters.

But, really, at the end of the day the key is overall funding levels, and I guess a general commitment to not be too narrowly focused in terms of genre or style.  Everything else is a distraction.

*note: what meager gov't funding the arts gets here, is not really through that sort of model anyway.

[muon2]

I think there's a distinction between government support of cultural facilities and programs and the support of new works of art. For example, a historical museum provides a benefit to the public and in some states can even reduce educational costs for required units on local history. However, there's no money to made at such a facility and little possibility that outside of a wealthy urban center that there would be enough of a donor base to fully support that type of institution. A mix of local donors and government is the most sustainable way to preserve history.

Park districts and recreation departments often support theater and arts as part of their mission to provide for cultural amenities. They generally aren't going to be commissioning new works of art, but they certainly improve the quality of life (and often property values as well) by providing the public those cultural amenities.

[Supersonic]

Disagree, non-critical.

[SNJ1985]

Disagree, non-critical.

[DemPGH]

Agree - no preference on critical. In fact, the constitution says. . . "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." ( I.8 ).