I agree with both your agreements and disagreements, although not all opera companies could survive without government funding.
Oddly enough, one of the ways that some of the big opera houses (the Met and Covent Garden, certainly) make additional money is by doing live theatrical showings of their operas. An opera house, big though it is, can only hold so many people. So they hire out local cinemas to show the opera performances, which not only increases their audience and revenues but also makes the opera more accessible geographically - you can live a thousand miles away and still watch the opera. The showings I’ve seen in London have run about £30 per ticket - obviously a lot more than an actual movie, but a lot cheaper than being in the hall itself.
I’m not up to speed on the current state of US arts funding but UK arts funding almost always comes with a requirement to provide educational programs or other social services (one local theatre in a deprived area had a successful program using acting craft to help teenagers with anger management issues). I do agree that funding opera may not be the best use of government arts money, given that it could fund several smaller projects for the same amount, but I like opera and want it to continue so I’m not really complaining that it gets some funding.
“Ladies and gentlemen, before we get to Act 3 we’d like to encourage you to continue to support the kind of high quality performances you’d heard here tonight. By which I mean: if you don’t cough up ten grand in the next fifteen minutes, we’ll replace Samuel Ramey as Scarpia with Sanjaya from American Idol. So get those checkbooks out and pens moving, or the opera gets it.”
Funny, people look at me that way when I’m being Neil Peart on drums in my car. But what’s a commute for other than indulging in fantasies?
To a certain extent, I feel your pain. With 10+ years in appalachia and another three here in ruby red South Carolina I don’t often fit in politically. Still, all that’s to do is to smile and nod. Public confrontation is rude and letting some pontificator spoil your evening just gives others power over you that they shouldn’t have. While I find the SDMB is about argument and debate I often find such is counterproductive in the real world. You never change anyone’s opinion and just get people all worked up.
Think of it as a being akin to the old maxim that one doesn’t win elections by converting the other guy’s voters because you won’t. You win elections by getting your guy’s supporters to the polls.
On the other hand, your larger point has some holes in it. Or at least it’s a ship that’s sailed. It’s quite possible that Wicked and such should receive no government support. On that I’d have to say it’s more complicated that you paint it. But many, MANY for-profit enterprises receive government support. Sometimes it’s for the development of new technologies and so forth. But sometimes the support is just there to enable them to make a greater profit or to get new ventures off the ground. The usual justification for such (disclaimer: one of my enterprises once received a State of Ohio grant of $60K to develop a piece of software as a start up.) is that doing so promotes jobs and furthers the greater good by providing taxable income for state, county and town coffers.
Hell, one of my favorites is the extra work my city once did to encourage a Wal-Mart to locate there. Not only did the city get grants from the state (lobby, lobby, lobby) to rebuild a set of roads to make it easier for shoppers to get in or out, but they also passed a sales tax waiver that allowed that store to collect sales tax but not have to pass it along to the state for a period of 10 years. So for those years, the store made an extra 5% or so on each taxable purchase.
So the idea of using public money to support for-profit enterprises is one that’s well-established. The only thing to argue about is which and where. And that’s more a matter of opinion and taste than anything else.
Morally, he is, IMO, under such an obligation. Although “obligation” is a little strong. But he’d be morally a better man if he didn’t attend things that he objected to the funding structure of.
I agree with him, however, that “hypocrisy” isn’t quite the right word to use for the moral failing exhibited. More like “have your cake and eat it”
I’m a white male physician living in the stickiest of the sticks of Kentucky. It’s an article of faith around here that every bad thing that has ever happened is the fault of Barack Obama, and “Coal: The Real Black Power” is a not-uncommon bumper sticker.
So that feeling you get at the opera? That’s the feeling I get every time I leave my house.
Heck, at least a couple of times a year someone comes out with some serious, old-school, n-word racism in my presence and is surprised when I don’t agree. Then I’ll actually say something. If someone is factually incorrect in a way that I think I might be able to correct, I do so. Otherwise I just keep my mouth shut.
Although to be fair and balanced, most of us here could have an evening ruined by our “Us vs Them” mentality. Let this be a lesson to any of us here who assume that everyone is against them, or make judgements about others’ politics.
My parents think Reagan was a pinko (seriously – my mom was a “Goldwater Girl” in a cowgirl outfit). They’ll rage against school lunches for poor kids (“Creeping Communism!”), but they’d be the ones loudly advocating for funding their opera and museum shows.
I’m a conservative and I support public funding for the arts, in fact I’d be happy with us doubling it. I think that’d still make it pretty small, isn’t it only like $150m a year?
There is a question I’d pose for other conservatives, “If this is something people like King Frederick the Great or Louis XIV did can we really say that it’s some sort of liberal largesse?”
All this talk of small government and fiscal austerity is trouble to me. I do believe in more efficient government, but I also believe in a traditional view of government that dates back thousands of years and is a bedrock of what I consider to be conservatism. Much of conservatism is centered on traditions and not lightly changing things long done. At least it was when I first labeled myself a conservative. It seems in recent years conservatism has become synonymous with libertarian populism mixed in with religious fundamentalism.
Like all populism, this brand of populism is a terrible thing. Great nations spend many on art, it shouldn’t absorb the budget or anything, but that pomp/prestige etc associated with great works of art makes a nation look stronger, greater, more prestigious etc and such spending should be as core to conservative thought as a desire to maintain a strong military.
Interesting. With those numbers you could equally say it’s a tiny amount of money and we should keep spending it, or that it’s a tiny amount of money and they can do without it.
And I do take that: in addition to buying season tickets (as opposed to individual tickets for just the shows I’m excited about, which would be cheaper for me), I contribute yearly as a benefactor. I believe I should pay for the stuff I like; I don’t think you should have to pay so I can go to the opera. I’d much rather we make a deal: I won’t pay for “The Return of the Chocolate-smeared Woman,” and you don’t pay for La Traviata. OK?
If sane minds ruled the process of giving grants to art, in the model of the patronage of olden days, I might see the value.
But here’s the rub: on what principled, neutral basis can you say that Puccini and Verdi are artists that deserve money but Andres Serrano or Karen Finely are not?
Here’s once in a while where I agree with Bricker, at least in part (not on arts funding - dead wrong there IMO). But It burns me to no end when people assume that present company are all in agreement on politics, religion, etc, and hold forth with a fierceness they’d never do in mixed company, never anticipating someone might not nod their head in agreement. It feels really awkward, and makes you feel like an obnoxious asshole for just even saying “I don’t agree.” Or hell, not even in a group, it only takes one person. Always assume mixed company and behave accordingly unless you have reason to expect otherwise.
In my case, my dentist and 2 dental assistants had themselves a little Tea Party tent revival while hovering over me and my mouthful of hoses and instruments, just chattering and occasionally asking me “Isn’t that right?” Fortunately I don’t have season tickets to the dentist, so I’ll be changing soon.
No, that did not occur to me, as it’s untrue. The exhortation to contact Congress was addressed to everyone in line. I was in line. Under what theory was it not addressed to me?
Well…both. The offense was the public exhortation that included the assumption I agreed with the political statement, without the opportunity to rebut and still remain polite. If my opinion had not been different, I’d have felt no need to rebut.
This fracas happened the night of game 3. I was torn, but not all that much. No matter what happened, the Series wouldn’t be over, and although I’ve seen a LOT of opera in my life, and I had never before seen a staging of La forza del destino.
Truth is, I’m only a casual baseball fan anyway, and it’s not like the Nats were in the picture.