Should Goverment Fund the Arts?

mosc · Last edited by mosc on Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:30 pm; edited 2 times in total

Editors Note: This topic came up in another thread which I've split off and moved here. It started when I was looking over a link about Norwegian composer Nordheim who apparently got very upset when he read a review of a colleague that said the music was so bad it was a waste of taxpayers' money for funding the commission. Nordheim went to the editor and got the guys job. Nordheim was a boob for doing this, but it brings up an interesting topic - tax support for the arts.

Thanks for the link on Mr. Nordheim. I scanned the article and it's very interesting. This struck my eye:

Nordheim struggled against the conservative press, and had no trouble dealing with contemptuous reviews of his own music. But when a reviewer on one occasion claimed that a commissioned work by one of Nordheim's colleagues was a waste of the taxpayers' money, he went in person to the editor's office and saw to it that this particular reviewer was never allowed to express an opinion on contemporary music again.

I'm finally going to break my own rule and say something bad about a musician; not his music, him personally.

I think I would certainly not like this Nordheim fellow. Good thing you didn't introduce me to him when I was in Norway. First, I don't think any artist should be supported with tax payers' money, any more than a religious group. Second, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even music critics. Going after someone's job because of their expressed opinion is pretty vindictive.

Still, I'll have to listen to this music. I can like the music and not the man. That's how I feel about Wagner.

seraph · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:29 am Post subject:

egw · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:58 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:24 am Post subject:

Arne kicking ass.. yes.. that is a famous story over here. On the other hand.. "nordheim bashing" had sort of been taken out into the twilight zone anyway.. so he should be entitled to kick some ass after all that shit. But.. well.. what he actually did was not that nice. For your information Mr. Nordheim is kinda into the high brow league by now and I suspect that it must be twice as frustrating these days when everything he does is praised as excellent art and the greatest ever when evidently very few really understand what he is doing.That leaves all the great words pretty meaningless. But.. do check out his music. The Tempest is quite good.. a solid piece of work. If you like that one.. you can sample the rest.

Public funding of the arts.. hmm.. depends on the actual political system and the country. Norway is so damned small..and.. it used to be a socialist state.. so.. the way we have art grants and funding.. makes some sense over here.. but then we have the problem about the what is art.. and what is culture.. and in many ways a lot of people are following the money and produce whatever that they can fund.

mosc · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:27 am Post subject:

Hmmm..... This is a good topic. I'm going to set up a new topic and see if we can get a discussion going. This isn't the place for it...

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:30 am Post subject:

Right ... snip the thread up here somewhere.. poor mr. Soundfreak kinda got his thread hijacked. Very Happy

I guess he gets the message.. that we are a chatty crowd that takes off into the wilderness whenever we get a chance.
But stay with us dear mr. SoundFreak... btw: did he tell us he us a swede.. well.. he is! Scandinavia! hookahey!
Cool

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:56 am Post subject:

I am all for publig funding of the arts.. government grants etc. but within reason. And there are some very obvious problems with such a system.. A lot of great stuff can very fast end up in the "entartete kunst" category.. but in a much worse sense that what happened in germany.. instead of being exhibited as bad bad bad stuff.. art can now be ignored.

Now funding.. slow death.. starvation.

I am for a certain darwinism here though.. but do not spell that as survival of the fattest.. ( survival of the funded artist )

Very Happy

mosc

I love the arts and music. I fund the arts everyday by paying for my own composing, running this website, buying tickets for concerts, purchasing paintings and sculptures, and even making donations. In most cases these expenses aren't tax deductable. Why should they be?

The government's primary responsiblity is the welfare of the people. This includes public services, police and military, the judiciary, common infrastructure. In recent times, there has been ever increasing to include health care.

I don't think supporting art is the government's job. To me, the problem is one of coersion. Why should my money be taken away from me, under threat of imprisonment, to pay another artist? Why should some person be forced to give me money because somebody says I'm an artist?

When tax money is distributed to artists, then there are naturally committees and commissions of so-called experts who decide who is an artist and who isn't. Who gets to be on these committees is eventually a currupt process. Artist's who want the funding have to suplicate themselves to these corrupt authorities. I think this ruins the art, ruins the artist, and it ruins the culture.

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:44 am Post subject:

Well made points. And one result is that we get academic art which at times seems to be genetically engineered to suit academically trained critics and committee members ( which of course would be recruited from the same academic camp ). If art is about what looks good on paper.. well.. ok.. then this will all be great art. If art is not all about great and exciting grant applications then ".. Houston.. we have a problem."

In Norway a lot of the grants are actually given to the people.. for cultural activities etc.. not that much goes to artists as such. Like for buying CDs and books for libraries etc.

mosc · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:20 am Post subject:

I'm not against libraries, schools or even museums. I wouldn't even balk at the government paying to build a concert hall as long as it was available to anyone. But these all present problems when it comes down to managment. Whose books, what is taught, who is exhibited.

Interesting that people on the extreme right and left have no problem with this. THEY know what is best for the rest of us, and that's what we'll get whether we know it's good or not.

The Soviet era had lots of government controlled art. Like the Nazi government supported art, not too much of it has left an impact on the world. However, Dimitri Shashtakovich came though. I think he's the Mozart of the 20th century (is this another topic?). Anyway, the point being that great art will emerge dispite the system that funds it.

That said, Impressionism, Jazz, Hollywood, Rock and Roll, Dada, Futurism, and Electro-music have arisen without government funding.

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:05 pm Post subject:

I am kinda all for prokofiev and I am not that into Shosto.. but.. i spent too my of my childhood playing Prokofiev piano music.. I think they call this genetic manipulation these days...

Norway has a lot of govermental art programs.. which all make sense because of the small number of citizens etc.. Island ( Iceland ) is another extreme.. a country where there is basically no people ... btw.. a great place...

mosc · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:32 am Post subject:

Yes, good point. One would think that in countries that are of a single ethnicity, like Norway, there probably would be better agreement as to what is appropriate and what isn't. But then again, what about all the hostility Nordheim received when he was starting out? I guess he is the new authority on music, and your tax dollars go where he thinks it should.

Maybe it's not the tax dollars, it's the oil profits. Laughing

Anyway, if the government didn't fund the arts then they could cut your ridiculously high taxes and you could afford to support your own art.