Political Compass #24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.

In so many cases, what we consider high art, or high culture today was the rap and American Idol of its time. Puccini was the common man’s composer, but now he’s irrelevant. I love him, but what has Puccini to say, in 21st century America, that no one else can say? What do we think an exposure to opera or other “classical” music (terrible misnomer, but easier than being more specific) is really an exposure to? I’ve heard people call the opera stories “universal.” But not only is that impossible, if they are truly universal, then what new insight can they bring?

If we listen to classical music, we’re simply hearing the music that was in fashion at some other time. Yes, we can claim that we are expanding our horizons, but very little about musicality has been abandoned. Music simply changes, evolves (if you want to use that loaded term). If we lived in a music-less society, we could reasonably be afraid that our children were going to grow up a bit stunted in their imaginations, and in that outlet for creativity. But we live in a world awash in music. We have dozens, hundreds of sources. We can’t avoid music even if we would like to (and I’d like to avoid all the noise, noise, noise, noise at times).

We can’t avoid having a culture. Somewhere in this thread someone feared not having a culture because of not supporting “the arts.” But the arts are all around us. There are few restrictions on how we can experience them, on how anyone can experience them, if they choose. Going to the opera? Surely that isn’t all there is to experiencing opera! There’s opera on the radio, and opera cds, and opera videos, and opera filesharing. I can collect versions of “La Traviata” (because Puccini was a hack, but Verdi was a god!). I can listen whenever I choose, no waiting on anyone else’s whim–governmental or otherwise. I can listen in my pajamas. I can listen ten times in a row. I can absorb, internalize, the music to a degree that few other cultures in history could have afforded to do.

And when I get tired of the angst, I can do the same thing with Barenaked Ladies.

Culture isn’t something that’s separate. It isn’t something we could actually not have. Art seems to be as close to a universal thing as there is–if we didn’t have it premade for us, we’d have to create it from scratch, because that’s just how we are.

Exposure to foreign (not in the sense of from another country, but in the sense of being distinct from one’s personal culture) arts serves to give a wider perspective of art. But when it comes right down to it, any exposure to art opens the door to creativity. In my involvement with poetry, one of the mantras when dealing with newcomers to poetry is “read more poetry.” But my mantra was always “just read something. Anything.” Because reading allows you to understand how the language is put together, and then you can learn how to duplicate certain effects. A novel teaches you just as certainly as a poem does. Barry Manilow teaches you just as certainly as Beethoven–if you choose to learn.

Curses. I forgot to post this:

Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

But I think you are confusing culture(*the tastes in art and manners that are favored by a social group *) with culture (*a highly developed state of perfection; having a flawless or impeccable quality *). Privately funded art is ubiquitous because it is so popular. That is, it is “favored by a social group”. Namely yours. It is not necessarily highly developed or perfect. Meanwhile, removing the profit motive supposedly allows artists to create art without concern for public consumption. That is, he can concentrate on the perfection of his art. My point was that publically funding artists imposes their culture (perfect art as concieved by the artist) on our culture (those tastes that are shared by all of us) by forcing everyone to pay for such art.

No, not right. Culture is imposed simply by forcing people to pay for the production of art which is not acceptable by those forced to pay.

Furthermore, you can use the same argument about privately funded art except that you can add: “If you don’t want to support it you don’t have to pay for it right?”

Say what? One of the many reasons I hate being exposed unintentionally to bad art is that it is so bad.

It imposes the existence of the (refined)culture, but not on us. It isn’t any worse or better than any other wasteful program. Whereas billboards, unwanted background music, etc., robs me of more than just money.

Art industry execs are, despite rumors to the contrary, human beings. Just because they try to make economically wise decisions abour what art to produce doesnt mean they do a good job of it. Heck, they could even have conflicts of interest such as pushing for certain projects to get done, so it will make them look good politically in the organization. Or they could just be doing a bad job.

The point being, that just because the companies produce it, doesn’t mean it is part of popular culture. A lot of things, even the ones that they mercilessly flog, do not become embedded in our consciousness: if they did, the top 100 albums would be by the same artists, every year. Sadly, all too often the campaigns do work, which is why we keep being subjected to them.

Perhaps we should think of publically-funded art as the R&D of pop culture. The government funding of cutting-edge art helps explore new avenues of artistic expression, which may (or may not) eventually filter down in some form into more popularly acceptable art. Without the cutting edge stuff, you’re only left with the middle of the bell curve and dull stagnation.

You think your confused? I wrote that sentence without the definitions the first time. It looked too funny to say you are confusing culture with culture. :wink:

My bad, I thought we were comparing like with like. I thought we were comparing opera concerts with eminem. I did not realize we were comparing shakespear with billboards.

Agreed. I don’t think I ever said that the production of records made them part of popular culture.

I’m not sure I follow this at all. You are saying that just because a record company produces a record (for instance) does not make it part of popular culture and thus embedded in our consciousness. I agree with that. I’m not at all sure I understand why the top 100 albums would be by the same artist nor how the idea of campaigns comes into this.

My point was that popular culture is “our” culture because it is popular. If there is an album, painting, or other artwork which is generally considered a good work of art (by the majority of a group), then it can be said to be favored by that social group. That is one of the definitions of culture.

If I understand your beef with popular culture now, you object to being subjected to adds for various songs or movies which you do not like. I understand this. I’m not sure if this really qualifies as imposing the actual art on you, however. You are still free not to see the movie or listen to the song, are you not?

Well, that’s where the imposition of the culture comes in. But even if we talk about the actual art, it’s still not my culture.

It’s vaguely insulting to me to even be involuntarily exposed to art I dislike, especially if it is in the guise of trying to sell it to me. The marketeers are certainly trying to impose their culture on us, by trying to embed their mediocre-art meme, if you will, into our brain. It doesn’t always work, but I resent the attempt as insulting to my intelligence.

agree, but again, it depends on what you mean by “our”. Certainly, I share cultural characteristics with a lot of people in this country, but you can divide it up into subcultures endlessly, where I continue to share more characteristics with them. But just because something is part of whatever culture I am a part of doesn’t mean I like it, nor am I copacetic with its ubiquity.

Not really, not when there are movie trailers before movies (not to mention advertisements), as well as the almost literally non-stop music playing in the background all the time. You can actually avoid this, but as I mentioned in my first post, it would amount to becoming a hermit.

But before you go off with an opinion of me as literally a tin-foil hat wearing person, trying to shield the evil culture-rays from penetrating my brain, know that I am only comparing my dissatisfaction with this to my dislike of public funding of the arts. I probably only pay several dollars a year in taxes toward public funding of the arts: I would gladly pay this much and more to NOT get insulted by stupid art, although that’s not possible.

I hope I have not said anything which gives you the impression that I think anything like this. I certainly do not think your ideas are crazy or even all that unusual. I find that I am quite annoyed at the commercials they show before movies now. Also, I do not like much of what passes for pop culture these days. I don’t mind advertisements in general, but I do understand the sentiment.

Finally, I agree that seeing a movie without the commercials and trailers would be most enjoyable. If an enterprising movie theater wanted to charge 50 or even 100 percent extra just for that I’d definately pay it. Maybe more if they would add some classic cartoons before the show. :wink:

Also, I should say that my objection to the funding of art has nothing to do with the amount. I agree that art funding is miniscule compared to the vast quantities of money the government wastes on other things.

If I may briefly interject, I think that the debate might have become a little broad. The proposition referred specifically to museums and theatres, ie. the buildings themselves. My OP contended that keeping them open when they otherwise might shut provides cultural experiences inaccessible in a free-est market, and that an educative standard might reasonably be used in judgements about what to subsidise, in the same way that schools judge Dickens, Shakepeare and Mozart to be more ‘worthy’ to teach pupils about than Harry Potter, WWF and Eminem.

But carry on.

OK, back to theater:

Though, to the best of my knowledge not publically financed:

From the same article:

Instead of local, state & federal governments taking money from taxpayers, some of whom barely get by week to week, why don’t the most generously compensated actors / actresses start their own charity fund for struggling theater groups?

Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

I guess that makes me a hippie politically, though I scarcely look like one.

I strongly disagree with the proposition in the OP.

Certain enterprises are almost never profitable, but are considered clearly necessary. By rights, no city should have a mass transit system, because transit systems are almost never profitable, yet they continue to exist. The people who use a transit system can’t afford to pay the entire cost of operating it, so the state has to kick in. They do this because the cost to society of not having a transit system is greater than the cost of having one, even if it is a financial drain. So with cultural institutions. By eliminating them we’d save whatever the subsidy is, as well as the cost of admission for those of us who utilize them, but the loss of opportunity would be far greater in my opinion.

To the one who said that Los Angeles’ publically supported museums are worthless next to the private ones, that is hardly true. LACMA does have a number of outstanding collections in certain departments. And the private museums besides the Norton Simon are generally not as good. The only beef I have with LACMA is that they lost the Gilbert mosaics, but I think Arthur Gilbert was just as much to blame for that fiasco.