Much of this commentary is a full of logical fallacies. Yes, we know what art
can do, but simply because public art was prominent in Greece thousands of years
ago doesn't necessarily mean it has a place in modern society whether there
exists money in the budget to pay for it or not. What the essay establishes is a
false choice between whether art can exist or not without government subsidies.
Of course, we know it can, has, and will continue to do so. The urge to create
will result in art regardless taxpayer expenditures.
Use the money for something really useful... like food.
I think that taxing the people -even a teeny little bit - so that the government
can coddle a handful of activist liberals is just plain wrong.Art is
wonderful, but if it can't pay for itself it should go hungry. Let
artists create as much as they want. Let them sell their wares in the public
square. Let the public decide what, if any, they will buy.There is
no justification in my mind for funding public art.Next thing you
know someone will want to fund public literature, and then public music and so
forth.And to be comprehensive, there is also no justification to
fund public science - especially when scientists are permitted to develop at
public expense, and then patent for private benefit. The old idea that what is
developed with public money is public domain seems to have flown the coop.
Art is great!I applaud artists and people who buy art.But, providing art for the public is not a government job, or a taxpayer
responsibility.Get the legislature to authorize an "art
fund" with all funding to come from voluntary donations. All the art
lovers are welcome to write as large a check as they want to and help provide
art for the public. Those who do not want to fund it do not have to.Make sure the list of donors is public record, and we can compare the names of
those who want public art with those willing to put their own money into the
project. And, let those who contribute help choose the "art" to be
Good grief! Has Utah changed since I lived there! So now instead of talking
about providing unfettered opportunity for people, they now speak as if artists
just cannot make it without government subsidies. (Many marginally talented ones
can't!) With the establishment of a government sanctioned "art
fund," how long before there is a push by the "artists" and
"art lovers," that "This is just sOoo important that we just
can't depend on the whims of voluntary donations. We really need legislation
passed to provide government funds to assure humanity's essential need and
obvious benefit from art is always maintained! And, survival of fledgling
artists." Therefore ushering in a permanent "artisan
class" who cannot make it without government subsidies! Don't doubt me! The
cry will come one day, sooner than you think,"Yes, the state is
dramatically over budget, but we will take the state to court if you try to cut
the 'Art Fund'!"
Something I don't understand. How can reasonable people who detest, bemoan,
revolt, cry and otherwise object to helping a neighbor by sharing health costs,
gladly dump out their pockets to pay for his entertainment. The art
scam, second only to prostitution, in being the oldest and most profitable
venture of man, is simply a way to allow a group of lazy individuals to live
without doing any real work. When their target was the lords and ladies of
wealth, who wanted some legitimate titillation, I would have no objection. But
in today's world the lords and ladies have found ways to make other pay for
their vice. Despite all the phony promises that the purveyors of
art make, none ever get fulfilled. The commercial profit of art is all that one
needs to know about in order to understand the priorities of or government.
"...He echoes the sentiment of the Newport New Public Art Foundation, which
says it well: "The impact of public art on a community is priceless and
immeasurable. Public art has the power to energize our public spaces, arouse our
thinking, transform the places where we live, work and play into more welcoming
and beautiful environments that invite interaction ..."While I
am not against art, but when the State is proposing to shut down or reduce State
Parks "because it doesn't make money etc." I would think that we
should look at priorities and take care of what we have.
P said: While I am not against art, but when the State is proposing to shut down
or reduce State Parks "because it doesn't make money etc." I would
think that we should look at priorities and take care of what we have.Don't worry they want to close all the parks too, do away with public art and
public education.Libraries, a long time equalizer will be the next thing
to go, they just let you borrow books, for free, how stupid is that? The
local Barnes & Noble must have a weak lobbyist. "Public" is just another word for "socialism" in their
minds.America Capitalism is starting to look uglier every day. If it can't turn a profit, than it is not worth anything to our new money
oriented society.Is it any surprise they want the word God on our money.
I thought the Legislature did away with this program. There is a warehouse full
of art, just sitting in storage and not being displayed. So why, when we have
so many budget issues, are we continuing this absurd project? It is not that I
don't enjoy good art (that is of course in the eye of the beholder), I do enjoy
visiting the art museums around the state, and I make it to the Park City Arts
Festival every year, I just do not understanding the State paying, in aggregate,
millions of dollars every year in art projects when they are closing access to
the natural art of the State Parks and cutting government jobs. But then who
can ever understand the rational of our beloved Legislature?
Are we so behind the curve as to not recognize these mistakes have already
played out elsewhere all over the country, and ALWAYS end up with something
offensive/pornographic/controversial being shoved down everybody's throat in the
name of "art?" That said, does the writer of this article
have any clue that quoting George Bernard Shaw is extremely offensive to anyone
who knows his history, as well as his support of the eugenics movement? DOUBLE WOW!
I find this whole discussion pretty surprising. Every great society that I can
think of supported the arts. Much of the great art, music and literature I can
think of was supported in some offical way by the government of its day. The
arts are among the things that create our culture and make us human. I find it
highly discouraging that there is serious resistance to the idea that the state
whould support the arts.