i am currently doing a project on wheather the public money should or should not be used to support the arts,or it a waste to support the arts.so help me by giving your frunk opinion and views.(if possible with statistics)
2006-08-01 16:53:26 · 3 answers · asked by roja 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Performing Arts
Every great culture in history can be identified with its art. In may cases, it's the only insight that we have to the perceptions in people's minds. Cave paintings in France, pictographs in Egypt, petroglyphs of pre-Columbian American Indians all give us clues as to the record of mankind's past.
In today's society, numerous scientific studies have been conducted that show that exposure to art education has a positive effect on all other courses that students take in school (see references).
2006-08-02 00:02:44 · answer #1 · answered by Goethe 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. There is a market for even the most abstruse artistic pursuits. If the government isn't funding it, then people who value it will. Why should the government decide what art is worth funding? People should be free to express themselves any way they want to (as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others), and shouldn't also have to think about what they need to do in order to get sponsorship for their art. In other words, the opposite of censorship can also be quite damaging to those whose views are at odds with the government. Art has been an important part of every successful culture in history whether or not it was state sponsored. Let's make the government spend our tax dollars on *protecting* our rights, not sponsoring them.
2006-08-02 17:21:20 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. Rob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supporting the arts helps everyone.
2006-08-02 01:51:26 · answer #3 · answered by Mary 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋