2006-08-16 15:46:56 · 14 answers · asked by Pushy Buttafly 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Contrary to popular belief, art of any kind is very poorly funded. Public support is needed for arts of all kinds. Art is fast disappearing from our schools and institutions. that being said, one cannot place judgment on art. You can hold an opinion, but what is "unAmerican" to you may be fully patriotic to the next person.
What a brilliantly chilling word: un-Amercian. There's no arguing with something you label un-American, is there? That's the whole point. if you argue, that makes you un-American by default as well. the word should be abolished from everyday vocabulary, since it has no real meaning except to alienate people who do not agree with what you think is right.
You can dislike art for being touche, classless, vulgar, incendiary, insensitive, unpopular, ugly, against your beliefs, insipid, boring, not holding any meaning for you, based in another culture: for any of a number of real feelings you can back up. Be my guest. But for God's sake don't call it "Un-American". Be creative.
Censorship of art is one of the classic signs of a totalitarian society. Public funding of the arts helps protect and preserve democracy.
2006-08-16 16:24:24 · answer #1 · answered by Hauntedfox 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The real question here I believe is should the public fund any type of art. Art is suppose to be an expression of creative freedom. If an artist is unhappy with something about America, I believe that that artist should be able to express that feeling as long as any law isn't broken. It isn't against the law in this country to dislike anything or anybody. Our "thoughts" are not governed by laws, yet. Once we manifest those thoughts is where the controversy come in, especially if we are an artist. Artists are "free thinkers." Should we, the public, give them money to express a small part of the cosmology of manifested thought? Thought comes from the general pool of a civilization and environmental conditions. Artists have the talent and the courage to manifest these thoughts, controversial or not. Should we pay artists to explore new realms of thinking which could change the world for the better or keep the American ideology as just a faint symbol or a reality? If an artist makes a cartoon about President Bush that some may see as anti-American, we have a right to complain and criticize it. Being an artist myself, I tend to agree that our taxes should not fund public art. It only stifles us and forces us into conforming into what those who fund art or artists want us to think. So no I don't believe public funds should be funding anti-american art. On the other hand that type of art , I believe should be allowed to be made and seen as it is freedom of speech and expression which our nation is built upon. We have been given the right by our forefathers to criticize our government for it's betterment. However, one shouldn't cross the line and break any laws in doing so. "Nuf said."
2006-08-17 09:53:47 · answer #2 · answered by TVC15 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's "anti American art"? Is that when an artist has an independent take on his surroundings? Or is it when someone makes an effort to wake up the sheep who blindly follow and believe the rhetoric of the politicians? Or is it art that doesn't support a position that you (not personally, Pushy, but figuratively) don't agree with?
Come to think of it, who defines what "pro American art" is?
2006-08-16 22:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by Padrecero 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the government is going to fund art, it absolutely cannot start making the distinction between what is pro-American and what is anti-American.
Because at that point, we have the government saying what is acceptable and what is not in the real of free speech.
If the government isn't willing to be neutral, and it's not something that is going to be part of a government building, then it needs to stay our of the field entirely. Equality or nothing.
2006-08-16 22:55:33 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There should be no public funding of art of any kind.
2006-08-16 22:52:41 · answer #5 · answered by dizneeland 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The public shouldn't fund art...PERIOD!
2006-08-17 00:13:25 · answer #6 · answered by solitas777 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think public money should pay for any art.
I love the art museums but there is plenty of private money to fund the arts.
Public monies can be put to better use.
2006-08-16 23:08:01 · answer #7 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Anything anti -American whether in the name of promotion of Art or spiritualism or any apparently innocuous scapegoat can not be funded by the public exchequer. It will be suicidal and foolish.
2006-08-16 22:53:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i didn't even know art got public funding.
2006-08-16 23:06:31 · answer #9 · answered by one glove 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Since America is about freedom from censorship, there is no such thing as anti-american art?
2006-08-16 23:04:17 · answer #10 · answered by cello_drama 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋