Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is:

 

Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is:

 

Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

 

shoot, i guess i'll jump off.

 

generally, i am against spending too many tax dollars on promotion of the arts. that said, that arts are not something to be taken lightly. they are indeed important for cultural reasons.

 

with rising costs in other areas (for example, the creation of an entire new defense department, Homeland Security), i would imagine artistic funding has taken a hit. no facts to back that up, but its probably safe to assume, since the focus of the country is on anything but the arts. so the real question is whether or not cutting arts funding is warranted in light of issues and events related to, say, 9/11. [does anyone know where i could get info on the amount of arts funding year-by-year, just to check?]

 

these are times that demand sacrifice. some areas of funding have to take cuts to support other areas that, quite frankly, are more important.

 

do i advocate deeply slashing arts funding? no.

 

would i feel bad if a few hundred government funded artists lost their funding and had to start teaching high school art or start selling their work to private collectors/galleries so that we can put more money into, say, border security (for example, to construct a large, barbed-wired, heavily military-guarded wall along the entire mexican border) or some other need that can be agreed on as essential by the majority of the country? hell no.

Frankly, I agree.

 

Except for this: if these are times that demand sacrifice, I'd like to see the sacrifice run across the board. Too often we cut subsidies to enrich our culture first, followed closely by subsidies determined to help the poorest and weakest of our society. And in the last few years, that has been followed with a tax cut - usually aimed at the wealthiest.

 

Our government is responsible for maintaining the health of our society - physically, economically, politically and culturally. When I talk about this last one, I don't talk about the government regulating content or even getting in the business of content but rather creating an atmosphere where our culture can be enhanced. Foundations and grants are a big part of making that happen.

 

More importantly, government has a responsibility to fund cultural education as well. Far be it from us to fall behind in yet another area to countries abroad in what and how we teach our children.

this is a competition, so i'll go extreme and stick by it. what the hell, why not?

 

the great depression happened over 70 years ago. why the hell are we still funding this stuff? FDR hasnt been in office for years. the New Deal is no longer needed. It served it's purpose, but all it's remnants do today is eat up tax dollars. I am willing to say that I advocate the termination of funding of the arts. In reference to another debate that used the same question, I would be pissed as hell if $$ were taken out of my paycheck to fund a public mural. Let some Van Andel fund that crap, not my money (I am from grand rapids MI originally, so if you are from around the area you will know what i am talking about).

 

How about building that wall along the mexican border that i talked about in my first post? thats really what im all about.

the great depression happened over 70 years ago. why the hell are we still funding this stuff? FDR hasnt been in office for years. the New Deal is no longer needed. It served it's purpose, but all it's remnants do today is eat up tax dollars. I am willing to say that I advocate the termination of funding of the arts. In reference to another debate that used the same question, I would be pissed as hell if $$ were taken out of my paycheck to fund a public mural. Let some Van Andel fund that crap, not my money (I am from grand rapids MI originally, so if you are from around the area you will know what i am talking about).

 

So you're saying there should be no more funding of memorials? Because those are publicly funded art projects.

 

This isn't about a New Deal or whether or not money is take out of your check to fund a public mural. This is about whether government should encourage cultural growth in a society. And it's not about building a wall the size of which would rival the Great Wall of China and still fail to stop people from just simply bringing a ladder with them when they cross.

 

Publicly funded art is everywhere. Christo's Gates in New York City. The 9/11 beams of light in lower Manhattan. The Picasso in downtown Chicago. Soldier Field. In many cases supporting the arts might be built into growing economic stimulus or encouraging greater usage of designed public space. Perhaps, if you're so against the idea of public funding of art, you'd be against public funding of single use stadiums - they in many cases serve the same purpose.

 

Would you also agree that if funding a sculpture to be placed in downtown Chicago is wrong, so would spending several hundred million dollars to build a stadium for a baseball team who will then sell the right to attend the ballpark and the right to name it without any further benefit to the government coffer?

Bump

So you're saying there should be no more funding of memorials? Because those are publicly funded art projects.

 

This isn't about a New Deal or whether or not money is take out of your check to fund a public mural. This is about whether government should encourage cultural growth in a society. And it's not about building a wall the size of which would rival the Great Wall of China and still fail to stop people from just simply bringing a ladder with them when they cross.

 

Publicly funded art is everywhere. Christo's Gates in New York City. The 9/11 beams of light in lower Manhattan. The Picasso in downtown Chicago. Soldier Field. In many cases supporting the arts might be built into growing economic stimulus or encouraging greater usage of designed public space. Perhaps, if you're so against the  idea of public funding of art, you'd be against public funding of single use stadiums - they in many cases serve the same purpose.

 

Would you also agree that if funding a sculpture to be placed in downtown Chicago is wrong, so would spending several hundred million dollars to build a stadium for a baseball team who will then sell the right to attend the ballpark and the right to name it without any further benefit to the government coffer?

 

i dont define a baseball stadium as "art". I think it is a business venture, that, if funded by a city, will bring more money into the city in the future.

 

so if building a statue is going to bring people and money to an area, i would advocate it's funding as an investment, not the arts.

To wrap this up....

 

I think that's its wrong to think that government doesn't have a role in helping to shape an active cultural life for its people. The actions that local, state and federal government make on a daily basis affect art. Why not support art as well? This isn't something that's limited to NEA funding, but includes education for the arts. A culture is only healthy if it has a healthy respect for beauty and art. If it has a vibrant community in all its aspects.

 

It's something that arts funding can provide and provide for relatively little expense.

After careful review by the judges, the winner is Rex Kickass. Congratulations. Round 2 will be posted as soon as possible.

 

Thank you,