Should the government support the arts?
This thread has been closed and archived.
This discussion is public.
Original Post
Interesting article on bringing back a WPA-like program.... I mean, we support big business, why not artists?
www.post-gazette.com/pg/10157/1063244-109.stm?cmpid=newspanel
Posted at 11:21am Jun 6, 2010 EDT
Responses
I don't know about how it works in the States, exactly. But in Canada we used to have pretty decent arts support ... up until Stephen Harper became Prime Minister. There have been absolutely massive cuts to the arts in this country in the last half-decade. When I started university for theatre studies six years ago, a person could expect that a BA would get them a few small, paid contracts with little theatres who had government support as charitable NFPs. Just being a theatre that did local work could get you charitable status, which helped with getting private grants (because companies could get a tax break for donating money). Working in theatre as an emerging artist probably wouldn't pay all the bills, but it you'd only have to work part-time at a "day job" because the theatre would be able to pay you SOMETHING. Now it's so hard for theatres to get those grants, that small theatres are either shutting down or having to run solely on volunteer power. Having a degree, or even a few years' experience in the field, is no longer enough, and everyone expects you to work for free.
The quality and availability of theatre in this country is suffering greatly because of these cuts. Used to be that you could see great, new, locally produced work at many different theatres, for quite fair ticket prices. Now ticket prices are going up, and wages for theatre workers are going way down, and many things aren't even getting produced any more.
Posted at 11:30am Jun 6, 2010 EDT
i've been an advocate - for years- to bring back a wpa program.
sorry my caps aren't working on keyboard today...
the wpa last time around - was predominantly the fine arts...
painting, printmaking, sculpture...
Posted at 11:38am Jun 6, 2010 EDT
Esp. when sports get tons of local $ and school $.
Why not the arts?
Posted at 11:40am Jun 6, 2010 EDT
The trouble is that arts happen, whether or not the government pays.
It gets harder and harder for the artists, but I'd never give up theatre, even if I don't ever get paid a dime for doing it. I don't relish the idea of working a "day job" for my entire life, and I'd love to one day support myself solely through my art, but if it never happens I won't give up and stop doing it.
And I think that's the attitude of most artists. So the government can cut arts funding, and the general public isn't going to notice. They'll still be able to go to art shows and concerts and the theatre. Some things may disappear, but enough will still be there that people who aren't artists themselves won't see the "art crisis" happening.
Posted at 11:47am Jun 6, 2010 EDT
Like most things, we don't appreciate what we had until it's gone.
Arts funding is critical to a well rounded society. You can argue up and down about what level of funding, but KarenEliz' points around quality and availability are valid.
Because we are such a huge country (Canada) with our small population dispersed far and wide, the gov't funding different programs was sometimes the only way the smaller communities would have any exposure to the different arts, and now it's disappearing..
Posted at 12:25pm Jun 6, 2010 EDT
Thanx -- can you tell that I think about this stuff a lot?
Posted at 12:29pm Jun 6, 2010 EDT
Government arts funding has been around for centuries and in the past was provided by monarchs, lesser nobility, popes etc. Nowadays, monarchs and the like are few; corporations and private citizens don't feel the need anymore and so unless governments do it, most artists have to manage on their own.
Given the current power of corporations and the huge debts of governments it's gonna be a tough slog for some time.
Posted at 12:58pm Jun 6, 2010 EDT