Should the federal goverment fund the arts?

Answer 1

To me is like asking if government should fund education.

Answer 2

Absolutely not!

First of all, the Federal government should only do those things which it is authorized to do by the Constitution. FUNDING the arts is not something the Constitution empowers Congress to do. Congress can grant patents to protect the intellectual products of artists, but this is quite different from forcing taxpayers to fund the creation of the art in the first place.

Second, art (especially modern art) is often inseparable from the individual artists personal moral, religious, or social views. Very often these views are controversial or repulsive to many taxpayers. It is wrong to force these people, through their taxes, to support the promotion of ideas which they oppose.

Third, government funding of the arts is just another form of taking from the poor to give to the rich. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of the people who enjoy the arts are upper-income urban types. Middle-class, working-class, and rural Americans rarely go to the museum or symphony, in large part because they are not interested in those things. Why should those people have to support the hobbies of wealthy professionals?

Finally, government funding of the arts is unnecessary and inefficient. There are plenty of people willing to pay for nice art. Look at the thousands or millions of dollars that are paid at private art auctions. And frankly, even if the amount of art in our society were to greatly decline, our country would still survive. Taxation requires government force, so it should only be used when it's really necessary.

Answer 3

No. Art is as art does. If someone is creating something he considers art he should be able to make a nice living at it. The problem is that once artificial funding is provided, suddenly, any old garbage is considered art. There are plenty of private foundations that help promote and encourage promising artists. There is no reason to have taxpayer money going to support "art" that the taxpayer does not wish to see.

When it comes to theater, orchestra etc. Communities and State Governments are more than capable of supporting these local endeavors if here is enough interest in them.

.

Answer 4

The federal government should fund NOTHING but defense and regulation of interstate trade.

Answer 5

Yes. Great cultures are known by their art and some of the greatest artwork in history has been funded by governments.

Answer 6

considering the sort of art I have seen funded by the Government I would say NO.

Answer 7

No. I object to my tax dollars being used to fund a study of men being photographed with bullwhips in their rectums. Yes, it happened. Yes, liberals defended it. Yes liberals are mentally challenged.

Answer 8

I guess it depends on if you think encouraging the arts benefits a society, or if you think having public schools for all benefits a society and things like that.

Some people take the tact that govt should stay out of everything and that they should not even pay for a police dept or fired dept or build roads. these people believe that society should like living like animals and only the strong and powerful survive and that if you are not strong, then you should die off and let someone replace you.

Answer 9

No. There are plenty of billionaires and artists out there to support it. The government's job is to protect the people and their rights, nothing more.

Answer 10

Yes.