I agree that it is often tricky, Shodan, and I alluded so in my OP, but I feel that this is letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I believe that some useful standard can be set in considering the educative value on a case by case basis. After all, we do not simply cast schools into the free market jungle just because the curriculum studies Shakespeare in preference to Harry Potter.
I work in a museum which recieves some state funding. The government has never tried to control anything we do, other than asking that grant money be spent for what it was intended.
What money we get from the government is mainly in the form of grants for which we apply. We don’t get paid from tax money on a regular basis, in other words. Could we survive without the grants? Sure. But it would greatly lessen the quality of programs and exhibits we’re able to offer the public.
Once a year, every schoolchild in our county goes through the museum on a field trip for free. On days like that, we have to pay extra staff to work. Without grants to support this, we probably couldn’t afford to do this.
We just built a new wing onto the building, so that we could be wheelchair accessible and have public bathrooms, as well as show off artifacts which no one had ever seen because we never had room for them. Government grants paid for a good portion of the building project. If we had to rely solely on private donors, the building would still be many years in the future.
My museum is a jewel for our community. The money we, and other musems/art programs, receieve is infantesimal when compared with the money spent on subsidies, but a very important factor in keeping us available to the public. I think my tax dollars are well spent in supporting things like this.
-4,-4
Strongly agree. However I’m revising for an exam in the morning so you’ll have to wait unitl after then for me to post my manifesto 
Perhaps we don’t, but we should, thru some kind of voucher program, and for many of the same reasons we shouldn’t fund the arts thru taxpayer money.
And we are not making the perfect the enemy of the good. We should allow each individual consumer decide for himself what art is good enough to support - not force him to subsidize whatever strikes the fancy of the grant approval board.
Regards,
Shodan
Scored on Ghandi, strongly disagree
If you need justification for the arts, you need a boot to the head. But I’ll give one, anyway. The arts define culture. With no culture, there is no identity, no being, and one is imported from elsewhere. An example of this is Imperial Russia importing from France (and a little from Germany). The most effective defense is to have a strong cultural, artistic, and literary discourse. You want your national identity absorbing others, not the other way around.
That, and I don’t want people 200 years from now looking back and only remembering Iraq and American Idol and Survivor. 
Frankly, take all the money the government and schools throw away on sports, and apply it to theater and music programs. I want to see a world where a leading thespian is the top of the high school food chain, instead of the quarterback.
Disagree. The arts are essential to a nation’s health and cannot be expected to be 100% economically viable without some government assistance. Would any of us like to go back in time and pull the government funding for Mount Rushmore? How about the Lincoln Memorial? So we subsidize the arts- the amount of the federal budget that we spend on them is trivial- if I get a chance I’ll look it up but I doubt it would equal say one week’s worth of the Iraq war. There are other semi-public institutions like PBS and Amtrak that add value to our lives and wouldn’t make it without government bailouts, tax breaks for donors, and some direct subsidy by government.
Strongly agree
Economic Left/Right: +5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: + 0.46
I’m involved in the modern art music community and I agree on the grounds that I think the funding is harmful to the art. I mean, seriously- how many of you can name 5 classical pieces (not film music) written in the past decade? The only composer the average person (even the traditional classical fan) seems to know is Philip Glass and his main works are some 30 years old.
I think the main reason for this is that for the past century or so composers have been recieving their funding primarily from universities- they’re put into a secluded environment where they can write whatever they want and easily organize performances with the college’s new music ensemble. As a result- we’ve ended up with a modern music that is extremely esoteric and fails to capture the interest of the public (although things are starting to turn around).
Having to please the public (and I don’t mean one should pander to it) is good for music (and art in general) imho, since once the audience is taken out of the equation the art seems to suffer.
So- it seems to me that receiving government funds is rather similar to the university situation- and as such I am strongly opposed to it.
Yet again I am not at home when I respond to one of these. Sheesh. I should be around (-4,-4).
I probably chose “disagree” but it wasn’t a very strong disagree, it was more of a response to the “prop up” phrasing. I’ve never really thought of it as “propping up” museums or theaters. I don’t have very many strong opinions on this matter, though. It would be a huge shame to restrict art and culture to only those who can afford it (whose culture would that be, exactly?), but I’m not going to get up in arms about it.
I don’t know the situation in the USA, but there is an abundance of new compositions on a regular base.
And they are not only composed for the means of international composers competitions.
The latest new work I heard (live) was titled Ushaka and is composed by the South African composer Mzilikazi Khumalo (Professor Emiritus at the University of Witwatersrand).
It is written for orchestra (orchestration by Robert Maxym who was also the conductor) choir and 5 vocal solists and staged as oratorium but could easily picture it staged as an opera (and with very dramatic scenes.)
This work tells the story of the Zulu King Shaka (1787-1828) who is seen as a leading figure in the history of Afrika.
It is sung completely in Zulu and was to me a revelation of beauty and I regret I had not the occasion to hear it tiwce .
Ushakais now on a tour in Europe with Robert Maxym as conductor.
There are regularly new works composed everywhere in the world.
You only need to go and listen to them.
Salaam. A
Oh forgot… One of my Belgian relatives who is musician (violin) and mostly plays baroque music was despite that specialisation last month participating in the creation of a new work in Belgium.
I could not be there to attend it so I have no idea about its quality, but when asking her about it she said that despite its modernity it was for her fun to play it and the reception by the public was one of enthousiasm (= standing ovation).
Maybe you people who complain that there is “no new repertoire” should immigrate to Europe or Afrika?
Salaam. A
(7, -1.5), strongly agree.
Here in Los Angeles, the most interesting museums are the privately owned ones (Norton Simon, Getty). The only really good thing about the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is the weekly concert, and that is sponsored entirely by private companies and individuals. The other government-run museums here are mostly worthless, IMO.
Artistic and cultural ideals should not be imposed upon the taxpayer by the government - to any extent whatsoever. If something is indeed worthwhile to the community or even a portion of the community, those people can and will prop it up. Who is the government to decide what is culturally important? Do you think that if Poland ceased supporting its musical institutions, there would be far fewer Chopin concerts all around? I seriously doubt it.
As for contemporary music, there was recently a pretty good Swiss composer named Caspar Diethelm. His distinguishing work was Menhir for violin and piano. Beyond that, I’m pretty ignorant of any classical music after 1950.
(-3.4,-2.5 ) or thereabouts - I can never remember.
I checked disagree, if only for the categorical nature of the statement. Probably had the phrase been categorically opposite (the government must fund museums and theaters) I would have disagreed as well. I think that there are valid some valid public policy reasons for governments to spend some money in these areas.
Are archives museums? How about local history museums/historical society - most likely the only records of an areas local history and life? Is it way out of line for a town to want to preserve something more than the bare minimum of records?
Can history and science museums not be considered an extension of the education system?
That describes the situation here as well. Although, unfortunately, most of this music doesn’t have much of an audience.
Ahh- Ushaka, I remember hearing about that piece a few years ago (although, I haven’t seen it performed). I was unaware that the piece was on tour, but that’s good to hear- so many of the composers I know have a sizeable catalog of works that were performed once and then never heard again. Repeat performances are hard to come by these days.
Well yeah, I don’t dispute that- like I said, I’m a part of the music scene so I’m well aware of the vast amount of music currently being written. I just wish it wasn’t so underground- I wish that more people were aware of this music. And I think that forcing composers to court the audience (rather than giving them funding regardless of whether or not their music has an audience) will lead to a healthier and more prevalent modern music scene.
Paladud,
I think you should widen your horizon and discover the abundance of classical music after 1950.
To name a few composers:
Stravinsky (the Rake’s progress: 1951), Messiaen, Bernstein, Nono, Tippet, Berkeley, Badings, Bennett, Boulez, Schaeffer, Stockhausen, Sjoshtakovitz, Hindemith, Quinet, Henze, Britten, Poulenc.
Just out of the top of my head. Just to say: On which Island do you live when speaking of music?
Salaam. A
I can’t agree with that. Composers should have the freedom to create without being worried about how the work shall be received.
If you make a prue business out of creative art, you kill everything creative on forehand.
An artist must not “please the public”. He must create to give testemony of his time and culture and to transfer this testemony as a legacy to coming generations.
The EU tour of Ushaka would not be possible without support of different organisations and governments who supported this in celebration of 10 year democratic South Afrika.
If I was leading a theatre I would already have plans to have it staged as an opera. (And maybe I should do some lobbying to get this done. Really.)
Pitty you never heard it but I think they have or plan a recording.
Salaam. A
Alde, I’m inclined mostly toward piano works, especially gloomy ones (Chopin, Satie, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky) but little orchestral stuff. I like Shostakovich, but I’m mostly familiar with his 30s and 40s works. Never liked Stravinsky much, and I thought Bernstein only conducted? Never heard of the others. Goes to show how much I know 
And yeah, I live under a rock
Well, if you have a piano there, it must be a very cosy rock to live under
Never heard of Bernstein as composer?
A little overview:
Symfonies: among others Jeremiah (1942), The age of anxiety (1949), Kaddish (1963);
balletmusic, a.o Fancy free (1944).
Opera: Trouble in Tahiti (1952), Candide (1956; reworked 1973), A quiet place (1983)
Musical: On the town (1944), West side story (1957), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (1976).
- Chambermusic, filmmusic, stagemusic
Salaam. A
Just because one company manages to secure most of their funding from ticket sales and private donations doesn’t mean that public funds aren’t necessary for the arts, as a whole, to survive. If we remove funding from these organizations two things are likely to happen: (1) ticket prices go up, making operas, symphonies, and museums even more inaccessable; and/or (2) companies focus less of the artistic merit of a production and more on its profitability. Now, some of you probably think that is ok, but I think that goes against one of the essential reasons these companies exists: to provide an alternative artistic experience other than what is provided by the commerical (i.e., profit-driven) industries.
Actually, the arts have historically depended upon governments to survive.
+7/-3
Agree.
This is a bit of a tough one. While I can see where our government might fund something like the Smithsonian and the various memorials (which can be considered museums) as an educational expess, I see no reason to use tax money to prop up purely artistic endeavors. What one considers “art” is a purely individual choice. One might just as well ask the gov’t to fund fashion shows as well as art museums. A perfect example would be a symphony orchestra or a sports stadium. If either of those can’t survive on its own, why should non-participating tax payers subsidize those who want to enjoy those experiences on the cheap?
I have to agree with something Zagadka said (sorry). I agree that “The arts define culture. With no culture, there is no identity, no being”. But the question is “whose culture?” If the arts are totally dependant on government subsidies to survive, whose culture are the artists representing? I take your point about culture being imposed from outside, but I’d like to point out that such a thing is only possible through government. Privately funded art cannot, by definition, impose any sort of culture on a population. Government funded art can impose values and propaganda on a culture simply by fiat.
Now, I realize that most of you arguing in favor of government funded art are also couching your support in terms of the “propping up” phrase. That is you “believe that some useful standard can be set in considering the educative value on a case by case basis.” as SentientMeat said. But what does this idea imply if not a bureaucracy deciding which art and artists are to survive and which are not? While this may be perfectly acceptable to those who have enough pull or trust in the bureaucracy in question, I have to ask again, whose culture is being supported?