should the government spend money on developing art by paying for paintings and sculpture in public place when there are still many projects need more money such as poverty, underdevelopment?
2006-11-30 13:50:27 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
art is useless. no.
2006-11-30 13:58:06 · answer #1 · answered by R-Diz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most artists are living in poverty, this way the government get "art" and the artists get money.
also unless you want the gov to treat you like the 1984 book, drones, it is good that the gov still looks at art. varity stimulates the mind (not to excess) some art is excessivly poor and never should be displayed.
we do need "public" places for people to get out and mingle. UNless everyone wants to stay locked up inside at 8 PM and rot infront of the tube. Art gives those who view it a chance to express their point of view on the item. good or bad.
Also keep in mind, there is no "government" it is you the tax-payer that is the governing force in these decisions. All of these "art" programs have to be voted on and approved. If the people would tell there local represatives what they want and get involved, then they are the government per sec. Carl
2006-11-30 22:02:22 · answer #2 · answered by Carl P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do think that the government needs to pay more attention to more pressing issues such as poverty. However, art can be used to help show others how people are suffering and may reach out to them at a deeper level than increasing the taxes. One could also argue that our government should help contribute to the betterment of society in which artists and other free spirits can express themselves, exercising their First Amendment rights.
2006-11-30 21:53:28 · answer #3 · answered by penpallermel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not!! The first reason is what is defined as "art"?Pornography is "art" to some, disgusting and degrading to others. Religious "art" would be banned because of the so called Church and State separation, which is NOT anywhere in the Constitution. Then, if all you want to promote is non offensive art, what are you left with? Not much I would think.
Second, our government on all levels wastes enough money without money going to the arts. The arts should be financed privately.
2006-11-30 21:58:07 · answer #4 · answered by Supercell 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as we humans are different, we will all have different priorities. Some like me, and you?, would prefer to help the needy. But others believe that the Arts are critical. Fact is, Art is important and we need it....and the Government wastes money every day on things less important then the Arts. I say support the arts, but only after you've fed the child.
2006-11-30 21:55:20 · answer #5 · answered by moosie2026 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For me, the government should pay pple who are living in poverty to paint and sculpture in public place. Poverty is not a disease, it's the result of the government decisions. If the government do not take action for it's own pple, then who will?
2006-11-30 21:52:49 · answer #6 · answered by Gigaburn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government to spend money where is needed, on poverty and on educating people to be self-sufficient. Otherwise is just a vicious cycle of uneducated, poor people who keep breeding more of the same. Knowledge is key to building a better place to live. Everyone is so focused on money and how much they could make and forget the big picture, our future, our children, education programs, etc.
2006-12-01 09:13:36 · answer #7 · answered by earthstarlatin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Public art is necesarry to preserve cultural heritage...... poverty is already there since the world started......so there are sometimes priorities in preserving higher degree of excellence than underdevelopment and poverty.... besides.. you cannot eradicate poverty.. its already in the mind of those poor people that the contentment of being poor... most of them are lazy to excel that is why they are poor..... but public art is for everybody.. for generations to come to appreciate the time we had in this land....
2006-11-30 21:54:05 · answer #8 · answered by bugi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Since when is art development more important than people? It's not. If the people are taken care of, they are more likely to have time and energy to be creative and more likely to produce art.
2006-11-30 23:30:32 · answer #9 · answered by No Shortage 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A true civilazation explores and supports art as well as continuing to solve social problems. Art comes from the soul. Without art, society has no soul.
2006-11-30 21:54:10 · answer #10 · answered by graff_monster@sbcglobal.net 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, but they could always combine the two: buying the art of the impoverished and underdeveloped. I think our gov't needs to concentrate on homeless children. They need much more help than homeless adults.
2006-12-01 05:22:21 · answer #11 · answered by manywarhoops 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋