Why should the government fund the Arts?

Question

Should the government continue giving money to the Arts or should the Arts become 100% privately funded?

I'm not against the Arts in any way, but just wondering why my tax money should go to Arts that I don't like. There are some that I do like, and I do help some of them personally. But why "force" me to help support the ones I don't like?

Answer 1

I agree with you on not having my taxes go to fund things I don't like. What passes for "art" today is insulting to the great artists of yesterday. I can take 6 cans of paint and throw them at a canvas too!

I think the Gov. SHOULD fund the art in it's buildings and courtyards. Have you ever seen the Capital Building in Washington DC? The art in there is amazing and I was very proud of this country when I saw all the statues and paintings. It was awesome but those kids of places are the ONLY places I think you and I should pay for!

Answer 2

Why can't leftists understand that the default answer to every question regarding federal funding of (insert recipient cause here) is NOT, "Yeah, well they spend a lot more on wars!". What does "A" have to do with "B"? If the feds didn't spend a plug nickle on defense, I STILL wouldn't want my tax dollars going to fund "Piss Christ" or any of the other nonsense which currently passes for art.

The feds should basically be maintaining a military, minting money, and delivering mail. Yes, I realize I left some of the Enumerated Powers out...I was making a point.

Answer 3

The arts should be privately funded. There is no public interest that justifies spending tax money on art.

Answer 4

you comprehend the French used to have an stable Academy for paintings, they fastened it so which you in basic terms have been given known for repeating the comparable varieties of paintings with the comparable matters that have been achieved for years. Very uninteresting, very predictable. Then got here the Impressionists, the Cubists and the Modernists no longer considered one of which could be seen unusual now that our eye has seen that each and every person before. yet then it replaced into scandalous. you are able to cite the main egregious, or the strangest, or the main some distance out, yet for many artists, its nevertheless a notably hand-to-mouth existence. If paintings stretches our mind's eye, or outrages our experience of propriety then it has carried out some thing, it has made us think of, formulate opposition, made us circulate someplace we hadn't ever theory-approximately going. it quite is fairly effectual in a prepackaged age. i might in no way purchase a cow butt portray, i do no longer comprehend if i might even prefer to look at one, yet in questioning with regard to the whys and why nots of this sort of ingredient, i've got achieved some thing somewhat distinctive. Its unlike we spend numerous income this, its a tiny blip in the federal budget. we are in a position to have the money for to try this, we choose extra questioning, extra soreness even in our settled perspectives. Its well worth it. Its a undertaking, its exciting.

Answer 5

Because the trade off to living in a free democratic society is supporting the things you don't personally like for the greater good of the society. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The problem with Free Speech is that you are sometimes forced to listen to idiots." Besides, your tax dollars go to support the Government as a whole, don't think about it in such narrow views that you are being force to support the arts.

Answer 6

Why should the government fund the invasion of sovereign nations posing no serious threat to the U.S.? Funding for the arts is less than 1/20 of 1/10 of the defense budget.

Answer 7

thats what the gov't is all about. taking money by force to fund things you wouldnt give a wooden nickel to if it was your choice. Hell they waste 9 billion every year on recycling programs, even though aluminum is the only product that it is more efficent to recycle than it is to make another can or bottle out of new aluminum. They have also wasted over $311 billion to date on the Kyoto protocal which will potentially only lower the world temp. an undetectable 0.003227620 degrees celcius by the year 2050. And most of the countries that signed up for it arent even following the program to lower the world temp. that undetectable amount.

Answer 8

hmmm....this is the biggest argument between myself and my thespian brother. The government shouldn't fund the Arts, period. There are plenty of artists who make it on their own....the good ones.

Answer 9

Having seen some of the TRASH,that's been sponsored, I have to wonder.
A years support for an ugly ,profane or stupid peice of so called art?
IF, something "ARTSIE" has merit somebody will pay good bucks for it.
Let the TRASH go where it belongs,in the can.

Answer 10

Because all art has value, whether you like the specific art form or not.