The best reason for Congress not to spend money on the arts is that doing so is unconstitutional, under the 10th Amendment. But it is especially discouraging that Congress not only is still spending money to promote art but is doing it lavishly.
A bill passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives will pump more money into the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities than they have received in nearly two decades. The extra money comes "after an aggressive push by lobbyists," The Associated Press reported, and President Barack Obama is expected to sign the skyrocketing spending into law.
Even if you believe Congress ought to ignore the Constitution and fund what some may consider art, and some may not, should the NEA and NEH be getting such high levels of funding in the midst of record-high annual budget deficits well above $1 trillion and a record-high national debt that is near $12 trillion?
It shows indifference to the wishes of the American people that instead of getting its financial house in order, Washington is actually increasing unconstitutional spending on art. Consumer choice and private philanthropy -- not involuntary taxation -- ought to be the funding sources for artistic endeavors. Taxpayers should have no obligation to support art that they would otherwise reject in the free market. And art that the free market is willing to pay for ought not to need subsidies to begin with.
Text Size:
We leftists and socialists think public support for the arts is a good investment in the quality of life for all. Throughout history the most developed cultures had strong government patronage for the arts.
The arts are soul food.
The NEA is merely being repaid for their illegal activism in supporting Obama's campaign. If he can buy a car company for the unions, he can kick back a few hundred million for the people who openly acknowledge their intent to push his agendas through their art.
Hey, it's only money. One can't destroy the economy by being fiscally responsible, can they? Of course not. You gotta "spread the wealth." It's the Chicago way.
You know from my other posts on art NN that I believe God the Creator imbued us with His creative spirit and we should all use those gifts. The arts, music and architecture (esp. our heritage) have enhanced our school curriculae and our societies over the ages.
The article is dead on though. Art is subjective and civic art, especially if it is politically motivated as the NEA art orgs were encouraged to do for Obama, should be a no-no brainer in these times. In fact, I don't agree with supporting PBS and NPR either. If they can't stand on their merits, they deserve to fall.
Elderly and children NN, are going hungry in this country!! Come on, where's your COMPASSION?
canary
It's all about priorities. I would fund art before pointless wars,for example.
War can cause poverty in a society (among other factors). It can also be the instrument for emancipating a people, tribe or nation (the Civil War, WWII, etc.). But when a nation is already facing impoverishment, why accelerate the process by focusing on non-essential programs and schemes that the populace by majority do not want? That, according to many Economists is mischievous, foolish and malignant.
There are unintended consequences as the great city of Babylon, the Aztec/Mayan cultures and others throughout history have learned. Unrestrained human culture has led to bloody human sacrifices for the entertainment of a few and total annihilation of the civilization itself. Self-implosion is the result.
The Dada school (originating during the Weimar Republic and ushering in the Third Reich) of thought and the arts believed that "the absurd should be considered". Although German culture and its peoples shouldn't always be compared to America's modern culture, still one can compare the behaviors and desires of humans across a spectrum of history and cultures. We have more in common than some think.
In one or two generations, the public and society can morph from luxury and decadence, social "progressivism" to "share the wealth" school of thought and onto Fascism as the country of Germany did not so long ago. It can happen again-here. The Absurd has already begun.
"There are unintended consequences as the great city of Babylon, the Aztec/Mayan cultures and others throughout history have learned. Unrestrained human culture has led to bloody human sacrifices for the entertainment of a few and total annihilation of the civilization itself. Self-implosion is the result."
You lay the failure of these civilizations on art spending?
Where in the world did you find this? or did you make it up?