PDA

View Full Version : Issue: Social: Ron Paul on the Arts




eted
07-23-2007, 10:08 AM
I was wondering how it would affect the arts not to have government funding? A fellow artist asked me when I sent out a MySpace bulletin about RP.

I will attempt another sweeping generalization by saying that I believe there are few arts-supporters or people who care about the arts here. He said he was told that he should go to the Hilary Clinton camp if he wants support for the arts, LOL.

tonyr1988
07-23-2007, 12:09 PM
If the federal government ended funding for the arts, most of it (if not more) would be picked up by the state governments and private individuals / institutions.

Make sure that your friend doesn't think that it's an issue of "Will art be funded?", but simply "Who will fund the arts?"

The federal government should give money to artists no more than they should give money to me for programming.

beermotor
07-23-2007, 12:50 PM
I support the arts with my personal dollars. I see no reason why the Arts will not continue to exist in the absence of federal funding, because, presumably, taxes will be much lower and I will have more money to support the arts with.

I take exception to your sweeping generalization, heh. Obviously.

Beermotor, Patron of the Arts

jblosser
07-23-2007, 01:12 PM
I would write checks to artists if the @%#@)* IRS stopped taking my money and pissing it away propping up their stupid ideas and failed invasions.

It's not like we didn't have art in the world before the Fed funded it.

Paul did say in the Google interview that the NEA was a low priority on his hit list.

angelatc
07-23-2007, 01:39 PM
I was watching CSpan the other night. Jeff Flake was trying to get earmarks removed. One of them was an earmark for a New York Ballet company, in the amount of $300,000.

Flake pointed out that the company in question has a net worth of over $50,000,000, and questioned why they needed federal funding.

The Democrat from New York spewed a lot of "why the arts are good" rhetoric, and eventually explained that this money was for an outreach program. Apparently the Ballet travels to smaller towns and does shows, and also workshops with smaller, regional ballet troupes.

Mr. Flake suggested then that perhaps the smaller troupes might need the money more, and again asked why the troupe with $50,000,000.00 in the bank needed government funding.

AMack
07-23-2007, 02:24 PM
Jeff Flake is a fantastic congressman. He's a bit less Libertarian than RP, but he is young, which means that even after Ron wins the presidency and fulfills his two terms, I'll have another paleoconservative/libertarian to throw my support behind.

1000-points-of-fright
07-23-2007, 04:25 PM
Unless the government starts supporting rock bands and jazz combos in seedy bars and basement recording studios, "artists" can blow it out their collective asses. Why is their "art" more valid than mine? It takes more time, money and talent to learn an instrument and write a decent song than it does to drop a crucifix into a bucket of urine.

The market decides what art is worthwhile.

Brutus
07-24-2007, 09:09 AM
The reasons the government supports the arts are 1) rich and influencial people want a price break on their ballet tickets 2) some art simply has no demand in the market place but is politically useful.

Gee
07-24-2007, 09:17 AM
If the fine arts aren't funded well enough, maybe thats because no one likes them enough to pay for them? Sounds fine to me.

Nathan Pannbacker
07-24-2007, 12:27 PM
I know a number of very good artists (who's work I have purchased) who have never and pretty much could never obtain federal arts funding. Consider what passes for "modern art" in our society, and it will become obvious that the art people will pay to see is not the same as the art politicians will make other people pay to see. The NEA has become an undesirable influence on our culture.

angelatc
07-24-2007, 12:32 PM
I agree with the poster that said if the government would allow us to keep our money we could buy more art. I saw a painting in a gallery that was reasonably priced, and it still haunts me that it was just above what I can afford to spend.

I'm not really an arts person, but when it speaks to you....you should be able to afford to buy it.

Man from La Mancha
07-24-2007, 12:58 PM
If the arts can not sustain themselves then the people have spoken they don't like that art form.. I for one do not want any of my governments money going to the arts.

Broadlighter
07-25-2007, 03:44 PM
Back in the day when I listened to Conservative talk radio, I would hear these stories about federally funded art projects depicting blatantly sexual - anti religious themes. The talk show host would express his outrage. That just made me laugh.

Then I went to see an art show in New York City, titled "The Kids Are All Right." I don't know if there was any government funding behind it, but there were pictures of teenage boys who had just finished jacking off. If this is the kind of stuff that gets funding from our government, I hate to say it, but I agree with the talk show jocks.

SeanEdwards
07-25-2007, 04:56 PM
There can be a legitimate case for government expenditure of tax money on arts projects, but only for the building of monuments and public installations. Funding a ballet company? No freakin way.

glts
07-25-2007, 05:53 PM
Answer me this where in the HELL in the Constitution does it say anything about the federal government funding art? If a person wants to paint, sculpt, crap on a sidewalk, etc. then they can f**king well do it one their f**ing own!!!!!!!!!!!!!