PDA

View Full Version : Should Government Subsidize Artists and Museums



Devil's Advocate
02-25-2013, 06:15 PM
For a very long time, I used to think this was a "hands down" no. Artists should be funded as much as the general economy.

Now... I'm not so sure.

Art is the foundation of the rule of law in that it cultivates language, grounds property rights in properness, and mitigates police. Artists are also psychologically sensitive and vulnerable to being downtrodden by ordinary professional, workaholic, industrialism.

Traditionally, art subsidies are looked upon as reckless liberal indulgence.

The problem as I see it is separation of Church and State. In order for art subsidies to be turned around, this would have to begone. Otherwise, you would at best see an abundance of naturalist and nationalist exhibitions that would revert back to liberal indulgence anyway. That is art would be used to celebrate the material in its actual form rather than interpreted to symbolize value.

Peter1469
02-25-2013, 06:21 PM
This seems to be the limit of the federal government's power in the matter:


***
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
****
US Const., Art. 1, sec. 8. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Chris
02-25-2013, 08:18 PM
Wouldn't "useful arts" be now called technology?

The best artists are starving artists.

Peter1469
02-25-2013, 08:40 PM
Wouldn't "useful arts" be now called technology?

The best artists are starving artists.

From the text that I quoted, it appears that the federal government is to allow sciences and useful arts to profit from their work though what we call patent's, trade marks, and copyrights. Did direct gifts public money.

Chris
02-25-2013, 11:08 PM
From the text that I quoted, it appears that the federal government is to allow sciences and useful arts to profit from their work though what we call patent's, trade marks, and copyrights. Did direct gifts public money.

That's why I think "useful arts" means more technology--could be wrong, as artists are protected by copyright, but yes the Constitution only says protect ownership not promote it but then there goes NASA.

Alif Qadr
02-26-2013, 05:22 AM
This seems to be the limit of the federal government's power in the matter:


***
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
****
US Const., Art. 1, sec. 8. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

What immediately grabbed my attention is the phrase, "USEFUL ARTS". What was being discussed are the useful arts such as: masonry, nation building, defense (warfare), invention, literature of a scientific nature.


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

zelmo1234
02-26-2013, 05:47 AM
I think that the better question is, does the should the government subsidize anything? I say NO!

Cigar
02-26-2013, 07:51 AM
Should Government Subsidize Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms over The Middle Class?

Chris
02-26-2013, 08:42 AM
Should Government Subsidize Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms over The Middle Class?

No, nor should it subsidize the middle class, or any other marxist class.

Cigar
02-26-2013, 08:46 AM
No, nor should it subsidize the middle class, or any other marxist class.

So if you were President with a high approval rating coming off back-to-back Presidential Elections, would you ask the 98% of Americans to tighten their belts while saying subsidizing Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms is a Tax on them?

Chris
02-26-2013, 08:51 AM
So if you were President with a high approval rating coming off back-to-back Presidential Elections, would you ask the 98% of Americans to tighten their belts while saying subsidizing Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms is a Tax on them?


Read my answer again, cigar, I clearly said no. Slow down, it's early.

And the topic concerns subsidizing artists and museums.

Cigar
02-26-2013, 08:57 AM
Read my answer again, cigar, I clearly said no. Slow down, it's early.

Ok so we agree ... so why would anyone in the Congress or Senate simply go do it?

Certainly it's not the only cut we should make, but it's obviously a cut that would "hurt" NO ONE!

Should be an easy thing to do ... correct?

So ... why do you think Republicans refuse to do it?

Remember ... I said it's NOT the only Cut we should make.

Chris
02-26-2013, 09:06 AM
Ok so we agree ... so why would anyone in the Congress or Senate simply go do it?

Certainly it's not the only cut we should make, but it's obviously a cut that would "hurt" NO ONE!

Should be an easy thing to do ... correct?

So ... why do you think Republicans refuse to do it?

Remember ... I said it's NOT the only Cut we should make.

You think like a typical liberal who thinks taxes and cuts hurt no one long as it's the other guy.

The sequester, agreed upon by both Dems and Reps, cuts across the board. It favors no special interest.


I said it's NOT the only Cut we should make.

Agree, the sequester doesn't even cut current spending at all.

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 09:07 AM
Should Government Subsidize Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms over The Middle Class?



No to all.

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 09:09 AM
You think like a typical liberal who thinks taxes and cuts hurt no one long as it's the other guy.

The sequester, agreed upon by both Dems and Reps, cuts across the board. It favors no special interest.



Agree, the sequester doesn't even cut current spending at all.

My problem with sequester is the even cuts. Some things the government ought to do. So much that government does it ought not do. Lets cut that first.

If Obama deliberately cuts things that the government ought to do, only to make Americans feel pain- that is almost an impeachable offense.

Cigar
02-26-2013, 09:10 AM
You think like a typical liberal who thinks taxes and cuts hurt no one long as it's the other guy.

The sequester, agreed upon by both Dems and Reps, cuts across the board. It favors no special interest.



Agree, the sequester doesn't even cut current spending at all.

Please explain why "you" as an "individual", is "personally" affected if we no longer subsidize Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms.

Cigar
02-26-2013, 09:11 AM
My problem with sequester is the even cuts. Some things the government ought to do. So much that government does it ought not do. Lets cut that first.

If Obama deliberately cuts things that the government ought to do, only to make Americans feel pain- that is almost an impeachable offense.

So why did the Boner Vote for it and say he got 98% of what he wanted ...

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130225-and-the-oscar-goes-to.jpg

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 09:21 AM
He is a lib.

nic34
02-26-2013, 09:30 AM
Boehner a lib?.....:roflmao:

Cigar
02-26-2013, 09:33 AM
Boehner a lib?.....:roflmao:

I heard some Senators on the news yesterday saying if he gives in to Obama again ... he's gone.

These are your Country First Americans who are Hawkish on Security ... yea right.

Chris
02-26-2013, 09:56 AM
My problem with sequester is the even cuts. Some things the government ought to do. So much that government does it ought not do. Lets cut that first.

If Obama deliberately cuts things that the government ought to do, only to make Americans feel pain- that is almost an impeachable offense.

That may be, assume it's so, but you know the picking and choosing what to cut won't be based on that assumption, but on special interests.

And 1.5 to 3% cuts in future spending increases is just a drop in the ocean of our debt.

Chris
02-26-2013, 09:58 AM
Please explain why "you" as an "individual", is "personally" affected if we no longer subsidize Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms.

You're a businessman, businesses just past their costs onto consumers. Think a little further along causal chains than just one link. The market isn't individuals competing but individuals cooperating, everything is interconnected.

Chris
02-26-2013, 09:58 AM
Boehner a lib?.....:roflmao:

Will big government con do?

Cigar
02-26-2013, 10:07 AM
You're a businessman, businesses just past their costs onto consumers. Think a little further along causal chains than just one link. The market isn't individuals competing but individuals cooperating, everything is interconnected.

and we'll see just how much when Cuts start hitting the Southern States

Peter1469
02-26-2013, 10:25 AM
Will big government con do?

Big government cons are libs in disguise.....

Chris
02-26-2013, 10:45 AM
and we'll see just how much when Cuts start hitting the Southern States

Huh?

It's not cuts in existing spending, cigar, it's cuts in future spending increases.

Chris
02-26-2013, 10:46 AM
Big government cons are libs in disguise.....

Socialists, big government central planners, statists, no difference other than name of party.

Bit the cigars of this world buy into that and try to distract with Rep vs Dem nonsense.

Alif Qadr
02-27-2013, 05:11 AM
I think that the better question is, does the should the government subsidize anything? I say NO!
In the interest of scientific advancement, i.e., scientific exploration by way of knowledge, yes federal government should promote, not finance, such endeavors. This means that the federal, state and local governments for the most part have failed the people of the United States. After all, most if not many of those who laid the basis of this country, were thinking men, groomed and some would say refined in "The Age of Reason". The Age of Reason is the period when Europe went through, or attempted to move from a feudalistic era into an era of intellectual and scientific advancement that was bolstered by moral reasoning, i.e. natural law.

Alif Qadr
02-27-2013, 05:27 AM
So if you were President with a high approval rating coming off back-to-back Presidential Elections, would you ask the 98% of Americans to tighten their belts while saying subsidizing Corporate Jets, Yachts, Oil Corporations and Corporate Farms is a Tax on them?


What are you talking about, Cigar? Subsidizing corporate jets, yachts, etc comes from consumers and if government through its so-called industrial subsidies is not the goal of said government subsidies. Once deals or contracts are signed to provide certain goods and services to government, what the business owner does with the money afterwards has nothing to do with government at all. This stands true unless there is a secretive compact made with the business owner(s) and those in government attached the proposed or approved contract. In which such action(s) are illegal and subject to prosecution.

zelmo1234
02-27-2013, 07:20 AM
Liberals are outraged at the oil companies getting 4.4 billion in tax cuts as an excelerated deprecation. However the 92 billion wasted on direct payments to the green energy companies, that have no customers and go out fo business as soon as they spend their federal hand out, Those are great, they have no problem with that at all.

Ivan88
05-23-2013, 08:27 PM
If the US governedment were honestly serving the American people, they would not be waging constant wars of aggression, and would instead be helping the American People at least as well as Khadafi helped the people of Libya.
In Libya, the people got 1000 bucks US a month. Working was optional. Interest free loans and health care was also availble.

But US politicians hate what Khadif did and so they unleashed and armed thousands of cutthroat Talmu-"Islamic" killers upon Libya and bombed the cities. These same politician hate to really help the American people too.

jillian
05-23-2013, 09:11 PM
This seems to be the limit of the federal government's power in the matter:


***
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
****
US Const., Art. 1, sec. 8. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

that has nothing to do with the question he is asking. nor is that the limit of the power of congress. congress at all times has the right to act for the general welfare. artists have always been of value to society, whether as poets laureate or sculpture commissioned for public space or even funding arts programs in schools.

i kind of find it inconceivable that anyone would take issue with the pittance, and it is a true pittance, given to the arts by the federal budget.

Peter1469
05-23-2013, 10:12 PM
that has nothing to do with the question he is asking. nor is that the limit of the power of congress. congress at all times has the right to act for the general welfare. artists have always been of value to society, whether as poets laureate or sculpture commissioned for public space or even funding arts programs in schools.

i kind of find it inconceivable that anyone would take issue with the pittance, and it is a true pittance, given to the arts by the federal budget.

The amount does not matter. The authority to spend tax dollars on something matters.

Dr. Who
05-23-2013, 10:24 PM
No, nor should it subsidize the middle class, or any other marxist class.Do you equate the middle class with Marxists?

Chris
05-24-2013, 05:51 AM
Do you equate the middle class with Marxists?

I associate the notion of economic classes with Marx.

jillian
05-24-2013, 07:29 AM
I think that the better question is, does the should the government subsidize anything? I say NO!

based on what? besides your own personal distaste for government doing anything?

jillian
05-24-2013, 07:30 AM
I associate the notion of economic classes with Marx.

why would you do that? marx only took something that already existed (e.g, classes) and incorporated them into his philosophy.

reality is that there ARE socio economic classes. not to the same extent as say, the cast system as it existed in india, but certainly someone making $10,000 a year is not in the same boat as someone making six figures, who is not in the same boat as someone earning a quarter of a billion a year.

Chris
05-24-2013, 08:24 AM
why would you do that? marx only took something that already existed (e.g, classes) and incorporated them into his philosophy.

reality is that there ARE socio economic classes. not to the same extent as say, the cast system as it existed in india, but certainly someone making $10,000 a year is not in the same boat as someone making six figures, who is not in the same boat as someone earning a quarter of a billion a year.

Prior to Socialist analyses like Marx's there were two classes, the ruling class and the country class, the ruled class. This represents a sharp distinction still seen today. Rich, middle, poor are arbitrary abstractions along a continuum: take any three people, one will be richer, one poorer, and one in between.

Dr. Who
05-24-2013, 04:58 PM
I associate the notion of economic classes with Marx.I guess middle income would be more descriptive. I don't really care for the word class myself. It connotes other things besides income.

jillian
05-24-2013, 05:05 PM
Prior to Socialist analyses like Marx's there were two classes, the ruling class and the country class, the ruled class. This represents a sharp distinction still seen today. Rich, middle, poor are arbitrary abstractions along a continuum: take any three people, one will be richer, one poorer, and one in between.
not really


The term "class" is etymologically derived from the Latin classis, which was used by census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census) takers to categorize citizens by wealth, in order to determine military service obligations.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class#cite_note-3)
In the late 18th century, the term "class" began to replace classifications such as estates, rank, and orders as the primary means of organizing society into hierarchical divisions. This corresponded to a general decrease in significance ascribed to hereditary characteristics, and increase in the significance of wealth and income as indicators of position in the social hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

Chris
05-24-2013, 05:13 PM
not really



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

OK. And thanks, the source of that is an interesting read: http://books.google.com/books?id=GcmXgeBE7k0C&pg=PA952#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mainecoons
05-24-2013, 07:08 PM
Regards the OP:

NO.

Chris
05-24-2013, 08:40 PM
not really



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

I've done a little research on that. Wikipedia is incorrect. The source is closer. But spells it out more precisely:


The adoption of Greek-style hoplite equipment in the 6th and 5th century B.C. changed the way the Roman army was equipped, organized, and how it fought. The introduction of metal body-armor and new military tactics such as the phalanx created a differentiation in the citizen-body between those wealthy enough to pay for such equipment (known as the classis, or “class”) and those who were not and continued to serve as unarmored light infantry (the infra classem, or “beneath the class”).

@ http://www.reallycoolblog.com/the-army-of-republican-rome-vs-the-zombie-hordes/ (][/url), [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Roman_army

It was a term for equipment only the wealthy could afford, not a term used to stratify society into social classes.

I was still incorrect. The concept of social classes came into play in the 1800s, as you source's source, http://books.google.com/books?id=GcmXgeBE7k0C&pg=PA952#v=onepage&q=marx&f=false, states:


http://i.snag.gy/dQveI.jpg

So I was close, as it was then Marx lived and wrote. The remainder of your source's source focuses mainly on Marx's use of class, with some of Max Weber's views.

Being wrong is how we learn.

jillian
05-24-2013, 08:49 PM
pragmatics? that wasn't the issue. the issue was etymology.

Chris
05-24-2013, 08:52 PM
pragmatics? that wasn't the issue. the issue was etymology.

Said nothing at all about pragmatics.



"equipment (known as the classis, or “class”)"

Etymology is the history of change in form and meaning.

Ivan88
05-26-2013, 11:12 AM
They were giving everyone 1000 bucks US a month to the Libyan people to support any sort of Art or culture they wanted. So, we bombed them and sent in thousands of cutthroat Talmu-"Islamic" terrorists.

So the conclusion to be made is that the US regime does not support anyone subsiding any art, except the art of hypocrisy.