Should opera houses receive public funds?/Should indie rock venues?

[classical liberal]

No/No.  The government should have no role in subsidizing either.  The government has more important things to do than pay the bills of "artists" very few are willing to personally pay to see. 

[War on Want]

Just Indie Rock venues, cuz they are kick ass.

[The Mikado]

And opera is pretty special. It's different from any other art form, for instance, meaning that we would lose a cultural dimension in losing it.

How is opera a different form a Broadway musical?  Both are musical dramas.  The only differences I notice are the language that predominates and how long ago they were typically penned.

Opera is similar to musicals, yes. But in opera I'd say the music is much more at the core of the performance than is the case with the musical. Also, while most operas are tragedies dealing with heavier subjects most musicals are comedies. Not saying one is better than the other but the usage of music and the whole experience is very different.

Tell me, would you consider operettas such as those by Gilbert & Sullivan or by Strauss to be opera or not?  What about Porgy and Bess, Candide,  Jesus Christ Superstar or Evita?  And what about opera buffas such as Don Giovanni, The Barber of Seville, and Falstaff?  Other than the lack of spoken dialogue (a trait used by some Broadway musicals) I'd say your definition is highly subjective, but then I doubt that any definition trying to demark which musical dramas are opera could be anything other than subjective.

I suppose you can guess by my name where I stand on the artistic merits of Gilbert & Sullivan, and I'm listening to the Candide soundtrack as I write.  I will say that George Gershwin (Porgy and Bess) and Leonard Bernstein (Candide) can both claim to be just as serious composers as Verdi and Puccini.  In fact, in the specific, unique case of Porgy and Bess, one could say that the work itself is a crucial part of American history and culture, and for that reason alone, merits preservation and government subsidy.  After all, it's undoubtedly the most famous and influential opera ever written on this side of the Atlantic, and one of the first shows to ever feature an entirely black cast.

Oh, and Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, for better or worse, doesn't need public subsidies.

[Storebought]

Patronage of the opera is an aristocratic responsibility. Always has been, really.

It's only a shame that our modern 'aristocrats' have such little taste.

[ottermax]

no/no.

I do support subsidies in some cases, but since I don't in all, I voted no. For historically significant opera houses there should be funds. Also if they are the only opera house in a state/region. Same for indie rock venues. However, new buildings should not be subsidized because they are then viable to support themselves. I'm not very sure, but I do not think that the public's money should be put into cultural locations unless these places have significance.

[Earth]

Neither should receive funds if they can't operate on their own. It's a sad thing if theaters/clubs/museums close but taxpayers shouldn't have to fund something that otherwise couldn't stay afloat by itself.

[JohnFKennedy]

Not entirely sure why this was bumped but I believe that arts venues in the UK are funded on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to community needs, their financial viability and their cultural and historical position. Funding is allocated by the Arts Council who receive most of their money from the National Lottery (although I think some does come from taxpayers, not entirely sure of the proportion).

My opinion of the situation is positive as it has opened up a whole wealth of cultural spaces and events to the general public. The permanent collections of all public museums and galleries are free-to-view and have impressive levels of attendance and tickets for performances at places like the National Theatre and the Royal Opera House are generally affordable. The NT do tickets for most shows at £10 (also aided by corporate sponsorship) and the ROH started offering tickets at £5 a couple of years ago which equates to a bit over $9. It's a major contrast to the commercial West End theatres where the cheapest tickets (generally with a restricted view) range from £15 to £20.

[War on Want]

I stick with my of No/Yes answer. Why, because I am a selfish bastard.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No/No

The government has no reason to prop up industries that might be dying.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Since then I've moved to No/No.

My music venues don't need government subsidies, most get along fine as it is, and there are way better things to be spending tax dollars on than f[inks]ing opera.

[TNF]

Assuming a workers' government has come into being, yes/yes.

Ideally, art should be funded by the public. I don't believe that the content of that art should be dictated by government bureaucrats, so I don't support funding one kind of artistic expression at the expense of the other. Ideally, funding would be dependent upon how many people attend such shows/download the music produced/etc/etc, so you wouldn't end up funding things that no one has any interest in listening to/reading/watching/etc

[Goldwater]

No/No.  It is not my job to prop up entertainment that can not survive on its own. 

[DavidB.]

No/No.  It is not my job to prop up entertainment that can not survive on its own. 

This (normal).

But if I really had to choose between Yes/No and No/Yes, I'd go for the latter option. Operas will always exist and don't need to be propped up by the taxpayer. The public at an opera are generally perfectly able to pay for this themselves. Indie... rocks, and I could understand helping some creative, talented, local bands, even though I'm still (and will always be) against funding this publically.

[Figueira]

I never really thought about it much, but I lean towards yes/yes, and I mostly agree with TNF.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Re-reading this...the part I find most odd is talk about a group of college-age guys going to an opera.

I'm trying to picture that happening with anyone I knew when I was in college...I can not.

[ingemann]

Yes/No

[Simfan34]

Every city with a population above 100,000 should at least have an orchestra and theater company, and all above 250,000 should have an opera company, each with dedicated (if shared) venues and publicly supported if necessary. Not to mention museums.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd go with the Minnesota model:  Levy a tax that funds arts programming.  Then allow people to apply for funding to help set up or run their venues if they need it.  Set guidelines for how that money is granted and put proper oversight in place and anti-corruption measures.

So far it has opened a lot of opportunities for Minnesotans to experience arts programming that they otherwise wouldn't and I think it operates as a "seed dispersal" program that allows people to try things and fail... but also give them a chance to thrive and become new institutions in their communities (which then provide most of the necessary funding for expansion).

Most of all it tells people in the arts that they aren't completely sh**t out of luck.

[DemPGH]

On these two things specifically, No/No. Some things really have to succeed on their own merits, and I would say that opera and especially 'indie rock' are two such things.

I do, however, support things like PBS, public support of museums, and science centers, because I think those things contribute to knowledge and further education.