When I was in college, we had a discussion about the culture wars. We looked at a photo of the art piece known as ‘Piss Christ’ where the artist had submerged a crucifix in his own urine.
The professor then pointed out that there were elements in congress that complained about certain works of art, and questioned whether government should be funding them.
A question was then posed to the class- should the government discriminate against certain works of art that they don’t understand (obviously, according to the professor) just because they found them offensive? If they did, then wouldn’t that amount to censorship? Or should they fund all types of art, since that would be fair and not discriminatory?
It did seem to be aimed at getting the kids to admit that they were either thoughtful or discriminatory, backwards jerks, but more to the point, he didn’t give another option- which I added when it was my turn to answer.
“I don’t think the government should fund art that I find truly incredible and absolutely love.”
This really got a reaction, since the going rumor going through the art department was that our new governor, Sam Brownback, was getting rid of the art funding for our state, this was to be replaced by a non profit organization that would get funding for the arts in Kansas through donations. Making this suggestion was somewhat akin to blasphemy in the company I was keeping. But I stuck to my guns.
It’s not the government’s place to pay for art. On top of cost, where do you draw the line? The fairest way to decide what art to fund is to not fund any of it.
This is why I got into graphic design. I still like painting, and I enjoy ceramics, but I know that it’s a hard field to get into. I mentioned this in the class, and this genius suggested that this would make all of the art just be Pepsi logos. Obviously, she didn’t understand what I was saying, which is- You just need to have a backup. Lots of actors and musicians work a day job as they try to get their music/acting career. I was one of them. I was going to be a professional in both of these fields when I was in my twenties, at which time I got fairly good at delivering pizza. If artists or classical musician get money for their craft, why not give it to aspiring movie stars or Heavy Metal musicians?
If you want to make art, nobody’s stopping you. In some countries of the world, you get beheaded for making art that others disapprove of.
The government not paying for you to make something is NOT censorship.
Why is it so important that government funds it? Or anything besides basic infrastructure? There seems to be this crazy notion that if the government doesn’t do something, it won’t get done. Art existed before the NEA, and will continue to exist long after it ends. Another discussion I got into on the subject ended with being told that government had to fund the arts to prove that it had a soul. Wow- I really didn’t know how to respond to that one except by pointing out that governments don’t have souls! People have souls, governments aren’t alive. They’re groups that are supposed to keep you safe, provide roads and such, and regulate commerce. These are fairly neutral ideas, and don’t take a soul to accomplish. Art is a product- whether you’re going to a gallery to see an exhibition, paying to see a symphony or play, or buying something related to these such as a painting of DVD. If you’re really good, as well as lucky and persistent, you might get world renown and become rich. You might not, but those are the breaks. There are plenty of businesses that don’t make it, even though they have good people running them and good ideas. But it isn’t the government’s place to support it. If it’s good enough, it will get bought. You will get a benefactor. But you’ll have to work hard at it. Is this cruel? No, it’s fair.